On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 01:15:17 -0000, Phil W Lee phil lee-family me "uk"
wrote:

"Duncan Wood" considered Sat, 07 Feb 2009
17:41:41 -0000 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:26:29 -0000, Phil W Lee phil lee-family me
"uk"
wrote:

"Duncan Wood" considered Fri, 06 Feb 2009
16:56:33 -0000 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:51:20 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
14:39:19 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Tim Woodall
remarked:
It's been suggested that people might rely upon the Emergency
Workers
Act as a defence for running a red light.

This is clearly a very poor strategy, when you can't be sure that
the
vehicle you are giving way to is actually covered by that Act.

Surely all you need is an "honest belief" that it was an emergency
vehicle (could even be an unmarked, unlit car behind you) and the
police
wouldn't even bother to charge, let alone it going to court even if
your
belief was completely wrong and it was difficult for others to
understand how you might have come into your "honest belief".

No, that's the problem. It's too great of an assumption to make that
this defence will work.


Why? Duress is accepted as a defence even for drink driving.

Where does that belief come from?
I happen to know of a case where that defence was rejected, despite
strong evidence that he would not have been driving (having already
had a drink) without the necessity to save a life.


Regina vs Martin, 1989.

That was driving whilst disqualified though, wasn't it?
The fact that the disqualification was for drink driving doesn't seem
all that relevant.


There's quite a few for drink driving, AFAIK they all involved a very
immediate threat of violence to the driver and it's only worked where they
drove a short distance.