Originally Posted by Gary Martin
once, look it up. its considered the same offence.
Road Traffic Act Section 28(4) :
Where a person is convicted (whether on the same occasion or not) of two or more offences committed on the same occasion and involving obligatory endorsement, the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed on a conviction of one of them (so that if the convictions are on different occasions the number of penalty points to be attributed to the offences on the later occasion or occasions shall be restricted accordingly).
The definition of what the 'same occasion or not' is not clearly defined in the act. Some say it's 20 minutes if it's on the same stretch of road, but it's down to the discretion of the judge.
Chris Tarrant got done twice for speeding on the same stretch of road with 21 minutes between each offence and that was regarded not to be the same occasion.
You're missing the point of why I posted though. You cited the 30mph speed limit as an example of a well written law with no ambiguity and said that you're either doing less than 30 and not breaking the law or more than 30 and breaking the law, there's no grey areas in it.
When actually there is - if it's regarded as the 'same occasion' then going over 30 for the 2nd occasion isn't an offence and the definition of 'same occasion' isn't clear from the Statute law.
Now substitute the Road Traffic Act for the Firearms Act and the words 'Same Occasion' for the word 'Capable' - do you see my point - No law ever written is completely unambiguous, not even the example you cited.
That's why we have Barristers and Judges - to interpret the spirit of the legislation and make a ruling.
Edit: Actually, according to the Statute law it's two offences, but you only get the points once.