Friday, 19 June 2020

Yet Another Nail In The Coffin...?

A teenager who knocked down and killed two people with his father's Audi has had his conviction and jail sentence for driving while disqualified quashed.
Hang on..? Surely this isn't..? Yes. It is.
Today his conviction and sentence were overturned at Reading Crown Court.
And you won't believe why....
Judge Heather Norton argued that PCSO Gary Clarke, who saw Coopey in his mother's car on October 19, 2018, may have been suffering from 'confirmation bias'.
She ruled that it would therefore be unsafe to convict Coopey on that basis.
Today, Judge Norton decided that Mr Clarke had only seen Coopey for three seconds, calling it a 'brief glimpse' and said he had expected to see the teenager.
Judge Norton said: 'It is recognition evidence from an officer who was primed to be looking for a teenage boy driving that car, who was primed if saw a teenage boy driving that car to the assumption that that boy was Max Coopey.
'There is force in the submission that this is confirmation bias. It seems to us that for two 17-year-old boys to pay £70 to insure a car, it is unlikely they would have just thrown that £70 away and had Max Coopey drive the car in any event.'
I guess the judge is ignorant of teenage boys. Especially ones who have so far escaped all punishment for persistent offending, aided and abetted by parents who both serve as police officers, and who - incredibly - set up a videoed exercise to prove their spawn's innocence! The judge threw it out of court.
'It could well be the case that they did all of that with Max Coopey at his home address and Kieran Shepherd at his home address, and Max Coopey drove to collect his friend on his way to London, but that is not how this case has been put and it would not be safe for us to make that inference.'
But it's perfectly safe to put this arrogant little shit back out on the streets with no criminal record?


Anonymous said...

Wait for the gem from Feral...and the silence from Penise and WC J.

Anonymous said...

If you conspiracy theory buffoons were accurate then surely a policemans son wouldn't get arrested or prosecuted at all? You really think he would get a free pass or a lighter sentence.?

16 July 2019 at 09:29

Anonymous said...

This is abominable, WC Jaded.

As a hardened grammar outlaw you escape real punishment for persistently failing to comply with the Apostrophe Rules for possessives.

Stonyground said...

"You really think he would get a free pass or a lighter sentence.?"

Err, isn't that exactly what did happen?

Feral said...

Coopey has had a lot of luck so far. Whether we like it or not, having parents who are deemed respectable does play a part in sentencing. I doubt the police officer would have been accused of confirmation bias had it been an underclass person in the dock. Something tells me however, that Coopey's parents are going to spend a lifetime of keeping their little angel out of prison. A bit hypocritical when their job is to uphold the law.

Nemisis said...

I hope for little Max's sake that mummy and daddy are popular at work. If they were not it'll probably be open season on them and their son's driving.
To be a fly on the wall when they get home after a day on the receiving end!

Anonymous said...

Melvin once again contributes nothing to the debate except sneering.

Anonymous said...

We know that the filth are quite prepared to provide fake evidence to secure a conviction, so why wouldn't they provide fake evidence to refute one?

Anonymous said...

"Melvin once again contributes nothing to the debate except sneering."

Let me put that right in an instant by dismissing malicious rumours that you were the school's most hated 'snitch' during your time at Puke Street Secondary Modern, Jaded.

Get yourself out on the beat more...if only for moderate exercise. Your doctor can prescribe a suitable non-steroidal medication to relieve those sore knees. Compliment this prophylaxis by avoiding bakery windows and swallowing less sugar, fats and doughnuts.

Hope these contributions restore faith.

Anonymous said...

If the Police officer's son was driving whilst disqualified, did the Police officer know? If he did, he could be charged with malfeasance in a public office, or neglect of duty for failing to do anything about it. If he didn't know, he could be charged with aiding and abetting in later failing to report the vehicle being taken without consent. As far as I know, you can't insure yourself to drive someone else's vehicle without that person's consent, so the story of paying £70 to do just that doesn't seem to make sense.
Perhaps the officer should resign and do something more fitting to his capabilities, such as ending each sentence with, "Do you want fries with that?" (alternately, he should be dealt with by the rubber heels squad of his force); the boy should be banned from driving for at least 10 years for causing someone's death; motor insurance companies should refuse to provide vehicle insurance for the whole family; CPS should sack the idiots who failed to build a proper case; and the magistrate should go back to school to relearn "The Idiot's Guide To Being A Judge".

Ted Treen said...

There are times when euthanasia is the appropriate sentence.

JuliaM said...

"You really think he would get a free pass or a lighter sentence.?"

He has, though. Hasn't he?

"Whether we like it or not, having parents who are deemed respectable does play a part in sentencing."

When I look at what they've done, it's not the first word that springs to mind.

"If the Police officer's son was driving whilst disqualified, did the Police officer know?"

I expect he feigned ignorance. And who wouldn't believe him?