The Hard Case of PC Mark Milton

It is wrong that PC Mark Milton is to have his acquittal by District Judge Bruce Morgan last May set aside and be retried.

I can understand how people could be unhappy that a policeman is acquitted after driving at 159 mph along a motorway, and perhaps even more so given that he drove at 91 mph in a 30 mph zone.

The High Court has set aside the aquittal because it considers the District Judge failed to take into account the possibility of danger to other road users who, had they been there, might have been endangered had they pulled into PC Milton's path. This is said to be a failure of the judge "in law".

If it was a failure of law rather than fact, it is one that is very close to a finding of fact, because implicit in the finding is the suggestion that had the judge taken such a hypothetical into account it would likely have been enough to have changed the judge's finding that PC Milton's driving was not in fact dangerous. From the reports it seems the High Court were very worried about PC Milton's driving - in other words the finding as a matter of fact that his driving was not dangerous.

It would be surprising to me if the judge had not taken the possibility into account and dismissed it, even if it did not form part of the reasons explicitly given by the judge to the High Court. Was it not, for example, even alluded to by the prosecution during the case?

The other aspect of the hypothetical is of course what PC Milton's reaction would have been had another driver appeared, when events would have shown how safe his driving was. We can never know, although perhaps that is just as well.

The High Court is really saying, in contradiction to the finding on the facts of the judge, that speed is itself ipso facto dangerous, irrespective of the absence of any evidence, other than the speed itself, that any danger was ever actually caused to anyone.

Why though should PC Milton be put through this? He was tried and judged and found not guilty. In the absence of any evidence of corruption of the court process that should be that. How many bites at the cherry should the prosecution get? The opportunity to revisit inconvenient or embarrassing acquittals is just the tool any vindictive, over-bearing, authoritarian, or otherwise illiberal state will wish to have.

If people think the police are out of control, then the answer is to regain control and accountability of the senior officers.

If people think the district judge made a perverse decision on the facts, then be thankful for judicial independence.

If people think PC Milton's judge really did make a mistake in law, then let there be a process for declaring what the law really is: there is no need to revisit PC Milton's acquittal in the process.

If people think the law itself is wrong, let Parliament change it.