172 MPH and in court

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/o...re/6962448.stm

Is he a motorist, or a car thief, just what exactly is aggravated taking?

[G]

He worked for the garage that he borrowed the car from. He was a valeter and had permission to shunt cars about the forecourt but not take them onto the road at 172mph. At least that was my understanding.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by Razor

...just what exactly is aggravated taking?

Aggravated taking

This is committed if a person commits an offence under section 12(1) of the 1968 Act in relation to a mechanically propelled vehicle and it is proved that at any time after the vehicle was unlawfully taken (whether by that person or another) and before it was recovered, the vehicle was driven, or death, injury or damage was caused, in one or more the circumstances listed in s12A(2):

(a) that the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place;
(b) that, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred by which injury was caused to any person;
(c) that, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred by which damage was caused to any property, other than the vehicle;
(d) that damage was caused to the vehicle.

There are two offences: under s12A(2)(b) where an accident results in the death of another (maximum 14 year sentence), and the less serious version under the other three headings (maximum two years sentence). In R v Marcus Leon Ashley Forbes (2005) EWCA Crim 2069, the defendant was seen to take a car and then engaged in a high-speed car chase with the police. The judge at first instance described the defendant as a menace, having driven in ways that could so easily have killed wholly innocent road users while disqualified, while released on licence having been convicted of other aggravated TWOC offences, and while "out of his head" on ecstasy. He had a long track record of convictions. The judge imposed the maximum consecutive sentences for aggravated taking and driving while disqualified. According to R v March (2002) 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 448, credit should be given for a guilty plea and Forbes felt a keen sense of injustice that he had been given the maximum sentence. The Court of Appeal confirmed the consecutive element of the sentence but felt that there was no overwhelming public policy justification for awarding the maximum sentence. Accordingly, a reduction was made to 22 months' detention in a young offender institution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWOC#Aggravated_taking

[Biker Biggles]

He could always say he was familiarising himself with the car's capabilities like that copper did last year.Worked for him.

So we have a new challanger for the title then. I didn't think this was going to get topped

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...st/6502167.stm

[embee]

It'll be interesting to see how the sentence compares to this one
http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=95432

"172mph and caught, no-one injured or killed" vs "driving slowly (?) the wrong way across a dual carriageway and one killed + one seriously injured"

I'd put a quid on him getting a harsher sentence because of what might have happened, as opposed to what did happen. We'll see.................

......but there again, we are told so often that "speed kills"

(PS - I do not condone 172mph on public roads and he's probably a complete twonk and deserves what he gets)

Yep, the sentence will be interesting, particularly when you remember that a biker was jailed a couple of years ago for doing a lower speed without any complicating factors like "aggravated taking...". Will the car driver be treated more leniently than the biker?

Maybe Hovis will have a poll about it?

Quote...

Rachel Burr, campaigns officer for Brake, said: "The idea that someone was driving at that speed is shocking and horrific...
...It is extremely selfish - they don't have the right to put other people's lives at risk."
I quite agree, wouldn't catch me being so selfish and stupid!

Driving at 172mph is quite amazing.

ha ha

was this guy aware of the speed camera and did he believe he could pass by without the camera catching him in the act. i'm not 100% about this but its around this speed that you can pass by a camera and miss the photograph? if any one knows the facts on this please share. Not because i'm going to try it but just interested in the facts. I personally thought what a prat!! when I read about it today.