# Prosecuted for flashing headlights



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Unbelievable :?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-12115179


----------



## hooting_owl (Sep 3, 2008)

yeah, i saw that too and felt like sending the poor bloke £20 towards his fine.

i always make a point of warning oncoming traffic when there is a camera van ahead of them. i was thinking about carrying a sign saying 'camera van ahead' and erecting it at the side of the road. the latest van they have around here is far less obvious than the last one.

plod with a radar gun is a bit different - at least they are making an effort to catch you and can exercise judgement.


----------



## wallstreet (Oct 19, 2009)

At least the fines are lower.

I flash often as well.

Waste of public purse! In a crisis.


----------



## BLinky (Jul 3, 2009)

i think both parties are wrong. a police speed trap itself isn't a hazard, the drivers who suddenly alter their driving (why would you need to? wink wink) or fail to continue concentrating on driving is the actual hazard. unfortunately because it isn't a hazard, falsely getting other driver's attention to warn them of a hazard is a fault.

However,

I think that the police's decision to pass the case on to the CPS and the CPS actually taking action is rather OTT as the driver was essentially doing the same thing as the police at the site on the day. I understand the idea of the speed trap acts as a warning and reminder for drivers to drive with care and obey the law. Unless it is there as a cash pot, not that I'm remotely suggesting they find any income from speeders.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

One would think that prevention is always better than cure when it comes to crime and law. The flashing driver was preventing crimes and therefore acting as a detterent, so should be applauded for helping the police in minimising the amount of people speeding. Unless of course, the real reason for the placement speed cameras is to trap and not to deter motorists from speeding, but actually to raise revenue. Perish the thought. :lol:

Safety Partnerships huh?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> One would think that prevention is always better than cure when it comes to crime and law. The flashing driver was preventing crimes and therefore acting as a detterent, so should be applauded for helping the police in minimising the amount of people speeding. Unless of course, the real reason for the placement speed cameras is to trap and not to deter motorists from speeding, but actually to raise revenue. Perish the thought. :lol:
> 
> Safety Partnerships huh?


I'm still struggling to see what his "offence" was. Since neither he nor the police could be certain that ANY of the drivers he flashed was speeding (and he is not qualified to "guess" at a driver's speed, even though a policeman is) then there's no proof that his actions caused any drivers to slow down and avoid the inevitable "gotcha" from the camera.

Unless he was directly interfering with the officers (e.g. standing in front of the gun, or distracting them / using a jammer etc.) then his action is indirect at best. Without evidence of an offence being committed, and no prior indication that ANY of the drivers were speeding, and no "intent", I think he's been trussed up like a kipper.

Hopefully this miscarriage will be won on appeal.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

jampott said:


> I'm still struggling to see what his "offence" was. Since neither he nor the police could be certain that ANY of the drivers he flashed was speeding (and he is not qualified to "guess" at a driver's speed, even though a policeman is) then there's no proof that his actions caused any drivers to slow down and avoid the inevitable "gotcha" from the camera.


When I read this a few days ago, I was thinking the same. I'm left thinking there must be more to it than what was reported, because as it stands it makes no sense at all.

I particularly liked the quote from the prosecution -


> You were doing it to warn them of a speed trap because as a motorist you don't want other motorists to be caught speeding. You wanted to make sure that people who were speeding slowed down.


It seems that making sure that people who are speeding slow down is considered a bad thing by this particular prosecuter...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

The charge was 'Obstructing a Police Officer in the course of his/her duties.' Bit of a nebulous and hard to define charge, but clearly one that sticks best by CPS.

I hope he appeals and decision is overturned. I wonder if he had played the card, "I was flashing other drivers in order to make them aware of _my_ road presence" , would have worked better, since this is correct usage of flashed lights according to Highway code. Why he would be wanting to make them aware of him would be moot, since "inappropriately warning other road users of one's presence" is not an offence in itself. But he admitted warning about speed trap so obstruction was prolly easier to pin by CPS, than perverting of course of justice

Needs a good lawyer and purse.


----------



## London (Sep 25, 2009)

I heard (can't remember where and so this could be complete cobblers) that the driver in question was a little too vocal when he was stopped.

Ldn


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

I saw this and it reminded me of quite a few years ago when there was a camera van on a straight and 
about 300m in front of it out of site of the van was a young lad with a sign telling drivers of the van.

Then about 300m after the van again out of site was his friend with a bucket doing the collection,

I chucked them a couple of quid.

Made me chuckle all day


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

London said:


> I heard (can't remember where and so this could be complete cobblers) that the driver in question was a little too vocal when he was stopped.


Then his offence isn't flashing his lights. Let's say it was though, since it seems to be the sensational basis of the story. Citizens have a civic duty to prevent or discourage "crime", and if a person prevented a robbery from taking place by alerting a hoodie to the presence of CCTV cameras on his planned escape route, one wouldn't expect that person to be prosecuted for helping someone avoid committing a crime. Apparently that's obstructing police, or might be if one happened to be walking by since you robbed him of a statistic. Welcome to the department of pre-crime!

Is is just me or is the state getting more and more like Minority Report?


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

Essentially he has been prosecuted for warning drivers of a speed trap. Why are those camera warning signs allowed then, aren't they doing the same thing?

Driving in the UK has become a total nightmare now. Road surfaces that would shame a 3rd world country, congestion, cameras everywhere, road rage, fuel prices, (what happened to the fuel stabiliser promise :roll: )shit weather, the green lobby.... about the only time driving is any fun is at about 3 o clock on a Sunday morning in the summer! Seriously considering looking for a local job (and pay cut if need be) to avoid commuting.

Won't be selling my gas guzzler though. Never! It's been brooding in the garage unused since September, but as soon as the weather improves, it's first trip out, will be at 3 oclock on a Sunday morning heading down the A2 for the Channel tunnel :wink:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Remnants of the last government. This one keeps making noises of changing that, but I haven't seen much of that so far.

Whatever happened to the banning of private clamping that was supposed to be introduced in November?


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

I'll play Devil's advocate here.

Let's not be deliberately obtuse about this and stop pretending that this guy was trying to deter people from speeding and therefore doing the same job as the speed camera. We all know perfectly well that what he was doing was to help people committing an offence avoid getting caught. It equates to rugby-tackling a police officer who is chasing after a burglar - the offence of obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty.

Of course because motorists don't view committing traffic offences as like breaking 'real' laws we see it differently. It's just a sport and helping people get away with their offences, whether it's by flashing headlights or giving them advice on legal-loopholes over the internet is all just fair play. Speeding is nothing like burglary so it's fine.

Well of course speeding is nowhere near on a par with breaking into someone's house but it is still an offence. Now, is there anyone who wants to make an argument that we should all be allowed to drive without any kind of regulation at all? Should everyone who has a driving licence be considered responsible enough to be allowed to drive just as fast as they like wherever they want to? Has nobody ever witnessed any poor standards of driving? I would hope that nobody would present that argument, and therefore I trust we can all agree there have to be some rules. Well, what's the point of rules if they are not enforced? It therefore follows that the police (or whatever responsible authority) should be allowed to enforce those rules without interference. So in that respect flashing headlights to warn of a speed camera really isn't all that different from stopping a police officer from catching a burglar.

You'd expect someone assisting the escape of a burglar to be prosecuted, wouldn't you? This guy's motivation was no different and his offence is no different, except that it only relates to traffic matters - and of course that is reflected in the relatively light penalty imposed.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Mark Davies said:


> I'll play Devil's advocate here.
> 
> Let's not be deliberately obtuse about this and stop pretending that this guy was trying to deter people from speeding and therefore doing the same job as the speed camera. We all know perfectly well that what he was doing was to help people committing an offence avoid getting caught. It equates to rugby-tackling a police officer who is chasing after a burglar - the offence of obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty.
> 
> Of course because motorists don't view committing traffic offences as like breaking 'real' laws we see it differently. It's just a sport and helping people get away with their offences, whether it's by flashing headlights or giving them advice on legal-loopholes over the internet is all just fair play. Speeding is nothing like burglary so it's fine.


I disagree. I see speeding as breaking the law and i make my choices like everyone else. I don't treat it the same as burglary, for example because i differentiate between the law and morals. My morals stop me stealing from people, not the police.

What i take issue with in this case is that a) the prosecution can have no evidence that the guy stopped anyone speeding (so it's actually more like someone walking down a road wearing a sign saying the 'police are nearby, so if you're a burglar you should leave') and b) speed traps aren't supposed to be about prosecuting people, which is why their location has to be made public in advance. They're there to make people slow down which, according to the prosecution is exactly what this guy did.


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> I'll play Devil's advocate here.
> 
> Let's not be deliberately obtuse about this and stop pretending that this guy was trying to deter people from speeding and therefore doing the same job as the speed camera. We all know perfectly well that what he was doing was to help people committing an offence avoid getting caught. It equates to rugby-tackling a police officer who is chasing after a burglar - the offence of obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty.
> 
> ...


Yes we all know the guy was trying to warn people that the tax collecors were out doing a really important duty, catching mostly law abiding people doing a few miles over the speed limit. Trying to put it the same as helping a burglar is beyond belief though. Speed camera signs are placed before a speed camera to warn people, that there are cameras about wasn't this exactly what the guy was doing, warning people that a camera is about.

I am sure most motorists want the Police out catching people committing traffic offences and this includes catching speeding motorists, but doing it with a camera isn't what the public want. They want the Police out catching burglars and protecting people not out with a camera tax collecting.

I have witnessed poor standards of driving, i have witnessed people doing some very dangerous things whilst driving, but i have yet to meet the camera that can pull people over and warn them of these offences.

I would expect someone assisting the escape of a burglar to be prosecuted, i would also expect someone driving dangerously to be prosecuted but if all the Police are behing cameras collecting taxes then this is not happening. I would also expect the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service to recognise that bringing this case to court was not in the publics interest, it only serves to alienate them further from the very public they are supposed to be serving.

Just because there is a rule does not mean that rule is right. Just because a small minority of people sat around and made up a new rule does not mean that rule was or is in the publics interest. The Police should use their own common sense when enforcing these rules. You do not have to look very far in history to see that if people did interfere with people enforcing stupid rules then the world would be a better place.


----------



## hooting_owl (Sep 3, 2008)

Mark Davies said:


> I'll play Devil's advocate here.
> .....
> You'd expect someone assisting the escape of a burglar to be prosecuted, wouldn't you? This guy's motivation was no different and his offence is no different, except that it only relates to traffic matters - and of course that is reflected in the relatively light penalty imposed.


mark hits the nail straight on the head.

i'd also expect to see the burglar prosecuted - but 'first offence' burglars are getting a caution. repeat offenders may get a suspended and if they are really really prolific, they may go away for a few months.

people would be far more sympathetic to law and order if it was seen to tackle the scum that blight the everyday life of decent, taxpaying citizens who may wander over the speed limit without realizing it. speeding happens every day - and for some a gentle warning will be effective. the one-size-fits-all approach of speed cameras leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth of most people. and those who operate above the law with bogus registration details can speed by with no consequence.

motorists are easy targets and speed cameras (they measure speed, not safety) are a cheap way to raise revenue.

i thought speed cameras were operated by civilians, not plod?

a proper plod speed trap is a different kettle of fish - as stiff boolacking from plod may have a bit more gravitas than a return-of-post fine.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

hooting_owl said:


> Mark Davies said:
> 
> 
> > I'll play Devil's advocate here.
> ...


...by delivering a Plod Spokesman line! By the logic of this case people who put up speed camera signs should also be prosecuted. The point made above that most people want the police catching real scum not people who mind their own business but go faster.

Speeding motorists are easy tax pickings. Cameras and traps do nothing to get rid of the dangerous drivers Mark illudes to, the blind granny weaving about at 20mph, or the people who have no idea what a Highway Code is. Get rid of speed limits and the sheer clutter of signs and people find their own limits, and accident rates drop. The only signs needed are lane markings on roads, and destination/junction guidance signage. The rest is just a distraction, especially in urban areas, but of course you're expected to absorb them all because disobeying road signs is also an offence. :roll:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

The helping a burglar analagy fails since it is really hard to see any victims in this case, wth theexception of the revenue accountants. Other drivers were deterred from speeding in a notoriousaccident blackspot, thereby reducing risk for other road users. One presumes that the police and CPS would have preferred that some motorists had sped into the black spot, with heavan knows what dire consequences as a result. That is the ethos of placing cameras in accident black spots, is it not?

Prevention is better than cure, but 500 cars fined £60 each in a morning, sure pleases the finance dept. P lus the officers concerned, since they may otherwise have to deal with nasty difficult criminals committing other nasty difficult to solve and process offences that may not yield the detection rates that the hapless motorist offers up. It all stinks really.


----------



## hooting_owl (Sep 3, 2008)

would disagree that speeding is victimless - but the level of attention given to catching speeding drivers is disproportionate given the levels of other crime we are having to put up with.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

hooting_owl said:


> would disagree that speeding is victimless - but the level of attention given to catching speeding drivers is disproportionate given the levels of other crime we are having to put up with.


I said that in _this_ case it was victimless, not that speeding is victimless per se., which it clearly isn't in many cases. So therefore the sooner the speeders slow down, the better for potential victims. This man made people slow down sooner going into a black spot, relieving potential victims of the threat earlier. Ergo no victims whilst he was committing offense.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Whether or not it was victimless is a bit beside the point. Thats not how laws are defined. The important (for this case) difference between speeding and burglary is that evidence of speeding can only be obtained while the offence is being commited. At the time the guy flashed his lights, there can be no evidence that there was an offence taking place for him to obstruct.

So, what I want to know is how anyone managed to argue that this guy helped people avoid prosecution when there is no way to prove that any of the drivers he flashed were breaking any laws at the time. Perhaps Mark can explain.


----------



## BLinky (Jul 3, 2009)

I have to disagree, speeding doesn't kill anything but bugs. Idiots kill.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I too on this occasion have to disagree with Mark's argument. Although I see his point, you cannot draw any correlation between speeding and burglary. It's a fallacy arguing that because society shouldn't warn a burglar of Police presence that the same should apply to speeding.

With all this the fundamental point is there is no reason to suspect that any other road users were speeding in the first place - no obstruction has been done unless there is the presumption of guilt on the other drivers.

I hope that the courts are a little bit more tolerant and aware of such arguments - which leads me to believe that there is more to the case than is reported by the media.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Again, we are all being really rather obtuse in trying to defend a specific, agenda driven argument. Are people really suggesting there wouldn't have been anybody driving over the speed limit? Look, there's no point having a debate if we're not going to discuss it in a realistic fashion. It would help if we all just accepted the obvious truths; there would have been people speeding and this man's motivation was not to slow them down for purposes of public safety, it was to help people avoid getting caught and incurring a penalty. Any arguments suggesting otherwise lack credibility and do little to further the debate.

And before going any further let's once more put to bed this ridiculous notion that speed cameras are about collecting taxes. Simon Cowell pays more in tax than is collected by the UK's speed cameras! The amounts of money involved are utterly insignificant and make not the slightest bit of difference to the nation's finances. Again, dragging out this discredited old chestnut does nothing to further the cause.

As ever it all comes down to this belief that breaking a traffic law is in some way intrinsically different to breaking any other law. Why do we feel this? Well, I guess it is because we all break traffic laws repeatedly most days of our lives and do so without any consequences for other people. On the other hand, whenever most other laws are broken there are usually detrimental effects on someone - there is a victim. Now I acknowledge that difference. This is why people often say they don't object to a police officer enforcing the law but they don't like faceless cameras with no discretion. They don't like the idea of being fined when in their minds they were doing no harm to anyone. Again, that is an argument I understand perfectly. I've said here many times, I have _never_ issued a speeding ticket in almost two decades of policing. In fact, I doubt I have instigated more than half a dozen prosecutions for motoring matters in all those years. I don't believe enforcement is the be-all-and-end-all of managing traffic safety, and I find the suggestions that I'm rolling out an official police line as very insulting. I have my own mind, I can think for myself and I'm a keen motorist just like you all. My opinions are my own, but I'd suggest my views are perhaps a little more informed than most from being on both sides of this argument.

Look at an individual case of someone doing 47mph past a camera in a 40mph zone on a deserted road and a fine seems harsh. It probably is, in those circumstances. But that's a rather simplistic view of the situation. Our roads _have_ to be regulated, and yes we'd much prefer it if all that regulation was done by police officers; real human beings with discretion who can differentiate between someone just straying over a speed limit but presenting no additional risk and those who are indeed posing a danger to those around them. But with tens of millions of drivers on the roads conducting many millions of journeys every day just how many police officers would we need to exercise effective control? More than we've got, and more than we can afford, certainly. And let's face it there's no way we can leave motorists to self-regulate, is there?

We have to be realistic. I'd hope we'd all accept there has to be a regulatory framework to keep our roads safe. I'd hope we'd all appreciate that we simply can't afford to have the exclusively face-to-face enforcement that we'd all feel was fairer - the police would need to be everywhere, all the time and they simply can't do that. No, if we are going to be realistic about it we have to accept that there has to be some element of automated enforcement. Of course the anti-camera campaign will drag out statistics about specific camera sites or annual accident figures in an attempt to prove cameras don't work, but those arguments all tend to ignore that fact that all the time every one of us is driving in an environment where we are aware of the possibility of a speed camera around the next corner. That knowledge alone has a permanent, tempering effect on our driving behaviour. Just imagine what it would be like if we _knew_ there were no cameras anywhere, that the chances of encountering a police officer were minimal and that we could openly commit traffic offences with no chance at all of being shopped by our fellow motorists.

Well, many people would exercise responsibility and drive at what they felt was a safe level. Sadly however I think it would be fair to say that most people tend to underestimate the risks involved with driving - they wouldn't have so many accidents if they didn't - and so that sort of self-regulation is unlikely to be effective. But then throw in the idiots who would use our roads as a playground and we're in real trouble. Speed cameras are not ideal, but at the moment we have few practical and affordable alternatives. Yes, we could get rid of the cameras. Yes, we could have an extra 20,000 traffic officers to replace them. _And yes_, you can have your road tax doubled to pay for it. Is that what you want?

Bottom line, I don't like speed cameras any more than you do - it's a form of enforcement I don't believe in and don't exercise - but I think I'm realistic enough to understand that while they are not perfect they are a necessity until we can find something better. In the meantime we have to just live with them - and the collateral damage of that may just be some speeding fines given out that appear harsh. But then again, there's a very easy way to ensure you don't get fined.

We also need to recognise that the whole point of them is our safety. Of course you wouldn't equate speeding with burglary, but then again the Theft Act is all about protecting property - material items that we all work hard for and which deserve to be protected but which are ultimately replaceable - while traffic regulation has no other purpose than to protect and save lives - which cannot be replaced. So on reflection, which law is the most serious, really?

Which is why I think it is right that people who try to interfere with the enforcement of traffic regulations should be deterred from doing so. It's also why I find this cavalier attitude of the 'law abiding motorist' a little misplaced, and even distasteful. Contrary to the attitudes so regularly displayed here and elsewhere traffic laws _do_ matter, just as much as those for burglary - _people's lives depend on them._

We find it easy to forget that because we do break these laws every day and nothing happens, but the reality is you only get away with it right up until the day that you don't. People whose lives have been destroyed by traffic accidents very rarely voice the same complaints as the 'law abiding motorist' - perhaps because they have a better appreciation of what those laws are for.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> Again, we are all being really rather obtuse in trying to defend a specific, agenda driven argument. Are people really suggesting there wouldn't have been anybody driving over the speed limit? Look, there's no point having a debate if we're not going to discuss it in a realistic fashion. It would help if we all just accepted the obvious truths; there would have been people speeding and this man's motivation was not to slow them down for purposes of public safety, it was to help people avoid getting caught and incurring a penalty. Any arguments suggesting otherwise lack credibility and do little to further the debate.
> 
> .


I think what is being said is that in this instance, is that a motorist flashing his lights at oncoming cars, was actually equally effective as the camera placement, as a deterrent to speeders who were entering an accident black spot. Would some have sped anyway? Doubtless. Did some slow down sooner? Certainly. It therefore seems that law enforcement would have preferred that more people carried more speed into the zone so that they could stop them, rather than having someone else slowing them sooner 100/200/300 yards up the road. If so why? Isn't getting people to slow within limit and drive more safely the prime objective. No one is playing down the role of excess speed as a potential killer and public safety issue

And of course there is an underlying presumption that every driver which the prosecuted man had flashed was in fact speeding at all. What if it could be proven (virtually impossible) that they were all driving within limit? Was there still an offence.

The course of an officers' duty must ultimately to keep the public within the bounds of the law. Far from obstructing that, this chap helped slow people down, assuming they were all speeding in first place.

What we do have to accept is that it is the CPS who ultimately are making decisions to bring such actions to court, based on liklihood of securing a conviction, rather than the police themselves. There are plenty of occasions when the CPS drops similar cases. So they must have been onto something.

I do hope he appeals though.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Mark Davies said:


> Again, we are all being really rather obtuse in trying to defend a specific, agenda driven argument. Are people really suggesting there wouldn't have been anybody driving over the speed limit? Look, there's no point having a debate if we're not going to discuss it in a realistic fashion. It would help if we all just accepted the obvious truths; there would have been people speeding and this man's motivation was not to slow them down for purposes of public safety, it was to help people avoid getting caught and incurring a penalty. Any arguments suggesting otherwise lack credibility and do little to further the debate.


So, if I was driving along at 30mph in a 30 zone and someone coming the other way flashed their lights at me (with no other cars on the road at the time) to warn of an upcoming speed trap, has the 'flasher' obstructed the law in any way? He's not prevented a crime from being committed or from being detected. He's not helped anyone do anything, despite his motives. In fact, he's done nothing other than waste some electricity.

Now, despite your assertion that it's an 'obvious truth' that other cars were speeding, I think without any evidence to show they were, the two scenarios are identical.


----------



## BLinky (Jul 3, 2009)

I demand pictures of your targa!


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Mark, you're defending traffic laws and the requirement to police the roads. But this is not what is in dispute here. No speeding offence has been committed, at most there is a minor infringement of the highway code (arguments have already been made to lurking coppers being a hazard worthy of flashing).



Mark Davies said:


> As ever it all comes down to this belief that breaking a traffic law is in some way intrinsically different to breaking any other law. Why do we feel this?


There is absolutely a difference in each law. I imagine we _all_ flash our headlights against the guide-lines of the highway-code (and many here will do much worse). This is done as it's judged by society (which will ultimately try you if it goes to big-boy court) as acceptable. People make errors of judgement when it comes to breaching the highway code as they do with everything else in life. The difference is, most of the population find themselves driving on the road; where as most the population are not at the back of somebody's home with a balaclava and a screw-driver.

Just because there is a law written it does not mean it's right. You have to accept if you break it you might land up in the slammer, but it doesn't make it acceptable. Take the law against mince-pie eating on Christmas day (I believe now repealed) - why had we found this acceptable to break? Because it's inappropriate. Unlike speeding there is little judgement involved in that decision.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mark Davies said:


> We all know perfectly well that what he was doing was to help people committing an offence avoid getting caught. It equates to rugby-tackling a police officer who is chasing after a burglar - the offence of obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty.


Devil's advocate or not, that's another horrific statement from you, Mark.

There is no evidence that ANY of the drivers he flashed were even committing an offence. His "warning" was made without any prior knowledge of their speed, or even whether the police officers would target them with the detection equipment. I'm pretty certain he flashed at ANY oncoming motorist, indiscriminately, for the next few hundred yards or so.

This is so far removed from your "burglar" example as to completely undermine your own argument. No reasonable person would even think to equate the two situations. In one, a policeman is clearly attempting to apprehend someone who they believe is in the process of committing a crime, and are physically assaulted whilst doing so. In the other, a policeman is stationed and waiting for a crime to occur within his vicinity. There is no prior knowledge that a crime has yet occurred, and no physical assault / intervention.

If I may use your analogy, it is MUCH more like going up to every stranger who happens to be walking near a random house and saying "I wouldn't burgle that house if I were you, as there is a policeman 100 yards over there..." There's no prior knowledge that the strangers have any intention to burgle the house, and the warning is indiscriminately given.



Mark Davies said:


> Of course because motorists don't view committing traffic offences as like breaking 'real' laws we see it differently. It's just a sport and helping people get away with their offences, whether it's by flashing headlights or giving them advice on legal-loopholes over the internet is all just fair play. Speeding is nothing like burglary so it's fine.


Nope, that's not the argument here. How are this man's actions any different from the roadside warning signs?



Mark Davies said:


> Well of course speeding is nowhere near on a par with breaking into someone's house but it is still an offence. Now, is there anyone who wants to make an argument that we should all be allowed to drive without any kind of regulation at all? Should everyone who has a driving licence be considered responsible enough to be allowed to drive just as fast as they like wherever they want to? Has nobody ever witnessed any poor standards of driving? I would hope that nobody would present that argument, and therefore I trust we can all agree there have to be some rules. Well, what's the point of rules if they are not enforced? It therefore follows that the police (or whatever responsible authority) should be allowed to enforce those rules without interference. So in that respect flashing headlights to warn of a speed camera really isn't all that different from stopping a police officer from catching a burglar.


Jesus wept...



Mark Davies said:


> You'd expect someone assisting the escape of a burglar to be prosecuted, wouldn't you? This guy's motivation was no different and his offence is no different, except that it only relates to traffic matters - and of course that is reflected in the relatively light penalty imposed.


So wrong... I would expect someone assisting the escape of a burglar to be prosecuted, but once again you've completely missed the point. Nothing to do with "traffic matters" and everything to do with the fact that NOBODY HAS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CLUE THAT ANY OFFENCE WAS BEING COMMITTED BY THE DRIVERS HE FLASHED.

In your example, reasonable belief that the specific person/burglar being chased has committed an offence is paramount. Now I am neither a lawyer nor a policeman, but I've watched enough episodes of The Bill to think I'm right in saying that the police only have certain powers if they have this reasonable belief, else they have to apply for warrants.

If this person had deliberately obstructed police when he (and the police) were both fully aware (or could reasonably believe) that an offence was being committed, then my opinion would be much closer to yours... but an unqualified civilian, travelling against the flow of traffic, is not adequately placed to judge with any degree of accuracy, the speed of oncoming cars. Point A. Furthermore, these cars have not yet passed into the sight of the police officer for their speed to be accurately measured. Point B. There is no evidence (video of photography) of the rear of any of these cars to suggest that they took action based on his warning. Point C. Considering all 3 of these points, there's no evidence that anyone was committing an offence, no evidence that any drivers even acted on the warning, and absolutely no correlation between this and a sodding burglary with a policeman giving chase.

Honestly, Mark... if you want any credibility (even as Devil's advocate) you'll have to think of something better than that. Once again, your attempted "defence" of your beloved profession is woefully short of the mark.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I think the problem is more with the CPS and the courts, but still I'm surprised that the cops felt that this was a reasonable action.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mark Davies said:


> Again, we are all being really rather obtuse in trying to defend a specific, agenda driven argument. Are people really suggesting there wouldn't have been anybody driving over the speed limit? Look, there's no point having a debate if we're not going to discuss it in a realistic fashion. It would help if we all just accepted the obvious truths; there would have been people speeding and this man's motivation was not to slow them down for purposes of public safety, it was to help people avoid getting caught and incurring a penalty. Any arguments suggesting otherwise lack credibility and do little to further the debate.


Mark, what has happened to the presumption of innocence? Prove to me that some of those drivers:

a) were speeding
b) took evasive action in response to the warning

and your arguments might start to make some sense. Until then, you are bringing absolutely nothing to this argument.

I find it really quite disturbing that a serving policeman can ignore one of the pillars of our justice system, just to further his unwinnable argument on a motoring forum.



Mark Davies said:


> And before going any further let's once more put to bed this ridiculous notion that speed cameras are about collecting taxes. Simon Cowell pays more in tax than is collected by the UK's speed cameras! The amounts of money involved are utterly insignificant and make not the slightest bit of difference to the nation's finances. Again, dragging out this discredited old chestnut does nothing to further the cause.


That's not an argument I've put forward in this case, and I don't think it is relevant.



Mark Davies said:


> As ever it all comes down to this belief that breaking a traffic law is in some way intrinsically different to breaking any other law. Why do we feel this? Well, I guess it is because we all break traffic laws repeatedly most days of our lives and do so without any consequences for other people. On the other hand, whenever most other laws are broken there are usually detrimental effects on someone - there is a victim. Now I acknowledge that difference. This is why people often say they don't object to a police officer enforcing the law but they don't like faceless cameras with no discretion. They don't like the idea of being fined when in their minds they were doing no harm to anyone. Again, that is an argument I understand perfectly. I've said here many times, I have _never_ issued a speeding ticket in almost two decades of policing. In fact, I doubt I have instigated more than half a dozen prosecutions for motoring matters in all those years. I don't believe enforcement is the be-all-and-end-all of managing traffic safety, and I find the suggestions that I'm rolling out an official police line as very insulting. I have my own mind, I can think for myself and I'm a keen motorist just like you all. My opinions are my own, but I'd suggest my views are perhaps a little more informed than most from being on both sides of this argument.


Ahhh... the moral and professional high ground. Half a dozen motoring prosecutions in almost 20 years is enough to tell me that you aren't a traffic officer, although sometimes it sounds like you wish you had been. I don't think that gives you any more experience than most of us to comment on this "crime"... It wouldn't do you any harm to recognise that your opinions don't carry any more weight than anyone else's. Particularly when the majority violently disagree with you on a number of levels, and with solid, rational basis.



Mark Davies said:


> Look at an individual case of someone doing 47mph past a camera in a 40mph zone on a deserted road and a fine seems harsh. It probably is, in those circumstances. But that's a rather simplistic view of the situation. Our roads _have_ to be regulated, and yes we'd much prefer it if all that regulation was done by police officers; real human beings with discretion who can differentiate between someone just straying over a speed limit but presenting no additional risk and those who are indeed posing a danger to those around them. But with tens of millions of drivers on the roads conducting many millions of journeys every day just how many police officers would we need to exercise effective control? More than we've got, and more than we can afford, certainly. And let's face it there's no way we can leave motorists to self-regulate, is there?


Irrelevant.



Mark Davies said:


> We have to be realistic. I'd hope we'd all accept there has to be a regulatory framework to keep our roads safe. I'd hope we'd all appreciate that we simply can't afford to have the exclusively face-to-face enforcement that we'd all feel was fairer - the police would need to be everywhere, all the time and they simply can't do that. No, if we are going to be realistic about it we have to accept that there has to be some element of automated enforcement. Of course the anti-camera campaign will drag out statistics about specific camera sites or annual accident figures in an attempt to prove cameras don't work, but those arguments all tend to ignore that fact that all the time every one of us is driving in an environment where we are aware of the possibility of a speed camera around the next corner. That knowledge alone has a permanent, tempering effect on our driving behaviour. Just imagine what it would be like if we _knew_ there were no cameras anywhere, that the chances of encountering a police officer were minimal and that we could openly commit traffic offences with no chance at all of being shopped by our fellow motorists.


Irrelevant. Except to say that, if this was a fixed camera, he wouldn't have been prosecuted. 2 reasons. Firstly, no police officers around to even notice what he was doing and apprehend him. Secondly, a camera isn't a police officer, so he couldn't have been prosecuted for the offence that was alleged. The whole case seems to hinge on the fact that there were police officers present. If you believe the media, he was either quizzical or rude (depending on which side you believe) at the roadside, and for this reason the officers decided to take the matter further.



Mark Davies said:


> Well, many people would exercise responsibility and drive at what they felt was a safe level. Sadly however I think it would be fair to say that most people tend to underestimate the risks involved with driving - they wouldn't have so many accidents if they didn't - and so that sort of self-regulation is unlikely to be effective. But then throw in the idiots who would use our roads as a playground and we're in real trouble. Speed cameras are not ideal, but at the moment we have few practical and affordable alternatives. Yes, we could get rid of the cameras. Yes, we could have an extra 20,000 traffic officers to replace them. _And yes_, you can have your road tax doubled to pay for it. Is that what you want?


Still irrelevant. Dont' make this into a rant about cameras, road safety, regulation and finances. It's about a specific case of a man being prosecuted in a case which many people believe was not in the public interests. Can you stick to the topic?



Mark Davies said:


> Bottom line, I don't like speed cameras any more than you do - it's a form of enforcement I don't believe in and don't exercise - but I think I'm realistic enough to understand that while they are not perfect they are a necessity until we can find something better. In the meantime we have to just live with them - and the collateral damage of that may just be some speeding fines given out that appear harsh. But then again, there's a very easy way to ensure you don't get fined.
> 
> We also need to recognise that the whole point of them is our safety. Of course you wouldn't equate speeding with burglary, but then again the Theft Act is all about protecting property - material items that we all work hard for and which deserve to be protected but which are ultimately replaceable - while traffic regulation has no other purpose than to protect and save lives - which cannot be replaced. So on reflection, which law is the most serious, really?


Irrelvant. This thread isn't about speeding, or whether it is right or wrong, or whether it should be enforced or not.



Mark Davies said:


> Which is why I think it is right that people who try to interfere with the enforcement of traffic regulations should be deterred from doing so. It's also why I find this cavalier attitude of the 'law abiding motorist' a little misplaced, and even distasteful. Contrary to the attitudes so regularly displayed here and elsewhere traffic laws _do_ matter, just as much as those for burglary - _people's lives depend on them._
> 
> We find it easy to forget that because we do break these laws every day and nothing happens, but the reality is you only get away with it right up until the day that you don't. People whose lives have been destroyed by traffic accidents very rarely voice the same complaints as the 'law abiding motorist' - perhaps because they have a better appreciation of what those laws are for.


Traffic accidents will always occur, regardless of whether everyone (or noone) follows the laws. Another sweeping generalisation that someone is always criminally culpable when someone dies on the roads. This is simply not the case.

The fact remains that, even if cars DID slow down as a result of his actions, surely that is a beneficial outcome?

I will leave you with this... If someone said to me, "I'm thinking of robbing that house over there... what do you think?" and I said "I wouldn't, mate... you'll definitely get caught, because they have decent CCTV." and, on the basis of my reply, he decides not to commit the offence and avoids certain prosecution, should I expect a knock at the door and subsequent prosecution for obstructing the police in catching someone in the process of committing an offence? By stopping the crime before it is committed, the police can no longer arrest and charge this person with the burglary.

If your answer to this is, "Well, you have PREVENTED a crime, not obstructed the police AFTER a crime has been committed..." then ask yourself, "What crime was being committed in this case?"

The answer, I'm afraid, is "none". Because we have to assume that nobody was speeding, whether you like it or not.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> I think the problem is more with the CPS and the courts, but still I'm surprised that the cops felt that this was a reasonable action.


Well, from what I've read, the officer who stopped him was just going to caution him but when he (verbally) stood his ground and told the officer that he still didn't believe he'd done anything wrong, he was arrested.

I completely understand that the Police have to, at times, interpret the law, as they don't have the advantage of discussing things with a legal team before acting. However, it seems in this case that the officer in question's interpretation was ridiculously broad.

Regarding his defence of the Police here, I'd still like Mark to explain exactly what Police action was obstructed. As far as I can tell their intended actions that day were to position themselves at the side of the road and observe (using a speed gun) passing traffic in order to identify speeders. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but which of these actions do they believe were obstructed and how are they able to prove that to a court?


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

are there no decent lawyers in the Grimsby area,,????


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Spandex said:


> Dash said:
> 
> 
> > I think the problem is more with the CPS and the courts, but still I'm surprised that the cops felt that this was a reasonable action.
> ...


For what? So the crime is now debating a plod's decision? It gets worse!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Dash said:
> ...


Not sure if that's just standard practise... Maybe part of receiving an official warning is that you effectively have to admit to the offence. So by refusing to admit it, the only option is court.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

ScoobyTT said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Dash said:
> ...


Apparently if you argue with a policeman, they "win" the argument by charging you with a trumped-up offence, out of spite.

Power corrupts. :roll:


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

I see.


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

PC Plod at it's best! What a complete waste of taxpayers money if this has to go to courts! I thought speed cameras were all being switched off anyway (thank fcuk) so what does it matter? I do wish Police and the like would concentrate on the really serious matters such as murder, rape, peadophilia, OAP bashing etc rather than this nonsence which it is!


----------



## BLinky (Jul 3, 2009)

are there any laws which allows people to fit 10megawatt lasers to the front of their cars? cos i need one.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

There are three certainties in life; death, taxes and the fact that whenever I write anything on this forum Jampott will come along and have a dig! It is also inevitable that his input will be filled with his blatantly obvious, prejudicial hatred of the police and be wholly unbalanced.

No, I don't miss the point at all - you just don't understand law. And again you're making arguments based on fantasy. *We all know* that some people on that road would have been speeding. Why? Because there always is - on any road, anywhere, any time. We all know that because we've got eyes in our heads and we see it every day on every journey we make. Anyone prepared to engage in measured and reasonable debate would just accept that. Trying to suggest there wouldn't have been anyone speeding there simply evidences the prejudism within your standpoint. You will continue to make your argument, and fill your boots - but people reading this in a more open frame of mind can clearly see the ridiculous nature of the point being laboured. _Your_ analogy of hanging around a house waiting for a burglary to occur is the one that is flawed - it's more like waiting at a specific house with intelligence that someone is definitely about to break in. The fact is, it's an absolute certainty that offences would have occurred at that location (there's never been a speed camera set up that didn't catch someone) and a refusal to accept that destroys any credibility of your position. Equally your analogy about the guy robbing a house is flawed. The guy here was flashing his lights at people he believed were _already_ speeding, with the intention of getting them to slow down before they hit the camera, so a more correct anology would be a guy finding somebody _already_ in the process of robbing the house and telling them they'd better get out of there because a cop is just around the corner. You know, an accomplice keeping a look out. You'd support that, would you?

Of course you (and Dash) think you are making the point that it is necessary to _prove_ someone was speeding but that just displays your ignorance of the law. It doesn't matter! Spandex, this answers your question. If someone breaks into a bank intending to steal all the cash from the safe but finds the safe empty do they not commit an offence? Of course they do. It makes no difference that what they intended to do turned out to not be possible. What matters is their _mens rea_ - their intent and state of mind. They planned to steal money from the safe and took actions to do that, so they have commited the offence. It is a fundamental legal principle.

This man *intended* to try and help people avoid getting caught committing speeding offences and his actions were clearly related to the presence of the speed camera. Whether he _actually_ prevented someone from getting caught is irrellevant in law to whether he committed the offence or not, just like it doesn't matter that there wasn't any cash in the bank vault. We've had post after post making the point about there being no evidence whether there actually were people speeding or not, but it's a completely moot point. Guys, I suggest you go and learn some law before making legal arguments in future.

The comparison I made with tackling a police officer chasing a burglar was to point out that any action intended to interfere with the processes of law enforcement constitutes this offence - the case regarding the burglar is just one we would more readily recognise and accept. However, the same basic elements of the offence apply - someone sees the police trying to apprehend someone committing an offence and then takes action to prevent that happening. Whether that action is successful or not or even whether it was necessary or not, the offence is committed.

There is no argument whether this man committed an offence or not. The evidence is there and by confirming his actions and reasons for them he's effectively admitted the offence, even though he argues that he's done no wrong. All the elements of the offence are complete and not in dispute. The only argument here is whether it is _morally_ right he should have been prosecuted.

I readily acknowledge that just because something is technically an offence does not mean it should be prosecuted in every case. The concept of discretion has been embodied in English law ever since the Magna Carta - the law recognises that the blind application of the statute in all cases would inevitably lead to clear injustices. Here Jampott you let your anti-police standpoint show once more. You make huge assumptions about me without knowing the first thing about me - you simply use a broad brush to apply your tainted prejudisms. You presume (without evidence) that I go around prosecuting people at the drop of a hat, because I guess in your mind that's what all police officers do. Well, you're miles from the mark.

I mean, what's all this rubbish about "a policeman ignoring the pillars of justice"? Oh yes, that's based on your completely misguided argument about the 'presumption of innocence', which as I've just demonstrated doesn't actually come into this case - not that you'd recognise that of course. Here you are just transposing your prejudiced ideas of the police onto an individual for the purposes of progressing what is so obviously an anti-police vendetta. Don't presume to know me.

No, I don't think all offences should be prosecuted - in fact nothing could be further from the truth. But neither should all offences be disregarded, and it seems to me we have a section of our population who feel virtually all traffic offences should be ignored. You certainly seem to hold that stance as all the argument I have given about why traffic laws should exist and therefore why they need to be enforced you have just dismissed as 'irrelevant'! Of course it's not irrelevant - it's at the very heart of this individual case. I'm sure everybody else understands that but if you can't recognise it there's really no point in having this debate.

The point is simple - you either accept the rule of law or you don't. None of us are going to agree with every single law enacted but it's not a buffet where you can pick and choose what suits you. We live in a democracy and all our laws are democratically enacted by an elected government - they are the will of the people. It is the very nature of democracy that we all agree to be governed in this way. If the majority are not happy with certain laws then they elect a government that will change them, but in the meantime we abide by them. Simple.

The very structures of our society are undermined where people are allowed to interfere with the mechanisms that support them and without the rule of law we have no society at all. It is therefore important that where people do try to prevent the law being enforced they are dealt with. The only argument I can see in this case is that as it is such a trivial interference with the law that it is disproportionate to prosecute. But _that_ position seems to rely entirely on the presumption that traffic law in general, and speed limits specifically, are unimportant and don't really need to be enforced - and through all the years of debates that I've engaged in on this subject I've yet to hear a single, good argument to support that view. I note that _you_ don't even try to make that argument - you just dismiss the whole crux of the matter as irrelevant. Hmmm.

We've had 50 years to elect a government to repeal speed limits, yet we haven't. That suggests to me that contrary to what you claim most people either agree with them or are happy to accept them and if that is the democratic will then the authorities have the responsibility to enforce them. Where's your argument against that?

And as for the CPS decision being in the public interest, I get a strong impression that this man was likely stopped by the police with the intention of doing nothing more than giving him advice about his actions. It seems to me that it's _him_ who has dug his heels in to make a stand on this so really it's _him_ who prompted the prosecution, isn't it?


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

The point I'm trying to make is that really who cares? the incident is mostly based on presumptions and I do believe innocent until proven guilty still aplies. We want police tackling the really important issues as mentioned before. It's just a waste on tax payers resources essentially is it not? The fact is motorists are seen as easy targets by the Govnt and convictions mean prizes for Plod. Stop this nonsence and start concentrating on the more important ones - Did I include the 60,000 illegal immigrants gone walkabout in this country or is that HMRC?


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Mark Davies said:


> We've had 50 years to elect a government to repeal speed limits, yet we haven't. That suggests to me that contrary to what you claim most people either agree with them or are happy to accept them and if that is the democratic will then the authorities have the responsibility to enforce them. Where's your argument against that?


Has any manifesto in the time frame you quote included the abolition of speed limits?

With regard to elections, it's quite clear that the population is largely comprised of morons who readily vote for the clowns who cocked up everything before the current bunch of clowns cocked up everything after being voted in because they were fed up with the bunch of clowns that they've just voted back in, and they will do this in cycles forever more constantly lured by the promises of "change" that unsurprisingly never happens. Let's then dispense with the notion that the British have had 50 years in which to elect a government that might do what people actually want, when in reality they have no realistic choice whatsoever, and are too easily swayed by recent history (take Thatcher's popularity surge after the Falklands for instance) or promises of real improvement.

As for the "it's the law" argument, that's the same kind of logic that sees people who take on burglars getting arrested themselves for defending their homes. I'm guessing that what usually happens when you ask a burglar nicely to vacate your premises is that they don't say "yeah, fair point" and leave. :lol: How many laws did the last government pass? Thousands. How many of those were either based on common sense or were asked for by the population? Just curious


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mark Davies said:


> blah blah blah


No, Mark... we will NEVER agree that on any given stretch of road, at any given time, there will always be people speeding. That's just an absolute crock. To hear a serving policeman come out with this rubbish is, as I've said, quite disturbing. If you cannot see that you simply cannot make this assumption, then I can't see any common ground.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to hold a balanced and reasonable view.

How can this man's intent have been to stop people from being caught speeding, if he could not possibly know if any of them WERE speeding? Sure, he may have been warning them that a police speed trap was ahead (indeed, he doesn't dispute this) but how can his INTENT be to obstruct the police, unless he also knows that the other drivers are committing an offence? The difference is subtle, but it is a difference nonetheless.

Bringing all sorts of unrelated and irrelevant arguments about the rights and wrongs of speeding, and using burglary as a comparative example is a great way of diverting attention away from the actual point here.

My comments in this argument are not anti-police, just anti-you, and your ridiculous attempts to try and suggest this is anything other than a gross misuse of public funds. Virtually everyone else I've heard express an opinion on this matter does not see that this was in the public interests. You, alone, want to stick your neck out on behalf of the police / CPS and take whatever flak comes your way. Fine. You seem to enjoy that sort of thing.

Assumption of speeding... *lol* I've heard it all now.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

"Morning sir. Do you know why I have stopped you?"

"Hmmm, must avoid sarcastic reply - errr no officer."

"Intention of speeding in a built up area."

" Sorry officer?"

"You look like you _intended_ to speed in that car"

"Guilty. Damn. How many points?"

Alas, CPS are correct:

_<<Obstructing a police officer
Police Act 1996 Section 89(2) Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both.

The offence of obstructing a police officer is committed when a person:-

wilfully obstructs 
a constable in the execution of his duty, or 
a person assisting a constable in the execution of the constable's duty. 
A person obstructs a constable if he prevents him from carrying out his duties or makes it more difficult for him to do so. The obstruction must be 'wilful', meaning the accused must act (or refuse to act) deliberately, knowing and intending his act will obstruct the constable: (Lunt v DPP [1993] Crim.L.R.534). The motive for the act is irrelevant. Webster J said in Lewis v Cox [1985] QB 509, 517 in the context of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty:

" &#8230; a court is not obliged &#8230; to assume that a defendant has only one intention and to find what that intention was, or even to assume that, if he has two intentions, it must find the predominant intention. If, for instance, a person runs into the road and holds up the traffic in order to prevent an accident, he clearly has two intentions: one is to hold up the traffic, and the other (which is the motive of that intention) is to prevent an accident. But motive is irrelevant to intention in the criminal law &#8230;" 
Many instances of obstruction relate to a physical and violent obstruction of an officer in, for example, a public order or arrest situation. This standard only deals with conduct which can amount to an obstruction in the context of an interference with public justice. Examples of the type of conduct which may constitute the offence of obstructing a police officer include:-

Warning a landlord that the police are to investigate after hours drinking; 
warning that a police search of premises is to occur; 
*giving a warning to other motorists of a police speed trap ahead; *
a motorist or 'shoplifter' who persists in giving a false name and address; 
a witness giving a false name and address; 
a partner who falsely claiming that he/she was driving at the time of the accident but relenting before the breathalyser procedure is frustrated; 
an occupier inhibiting the proper execution of a search warrant (if the warrant has been issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act, see also section 23 of that Act); 
refusing to admit constables into a house when there is a right of entry under section4(7) of the road Traffic Act 1988 (arrest for driving etc while unfit through drink or drugs)._>>


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

jampott said:


> No, Mark... we will NEVER agree that on any given stretch of road, at any given time, there will always be people speeding. That's just an absolute crock.


How bizarre! I must live in a completely different world to you because when I'm driving around in my own car (unless stuck in a traffic jam of course) I doubt more than 5 minutes _ever_ go by without me witnessing someone driving over the speed limit. It's the fact that you seem to be seriously disputing that speed limits aren't habitually broken and actually using that to suggest it's 'disturbing' to hear a police officer just state that plain truth that highlights your apparent desperate need to knock cops. Virtually everybody will break a speed limit in some way on virtually every journey they make, whether intentional or not - you, me, everybody. It's not an 'assumption of speeding' - it's just reality. I can admit that and I suspect so could everyone else with any degree of honesty. Why can't you? By refusing to do so you just look unreasonable.



jampott said:


> How can this man's intent have been to stop people from being caught speeding, if he could not possibly know if any of them WERE speeding? Sure, he may have been warning them that a police speed trap was ahead (indeed, he doesn't dispute this) but how can his INTENT be to obstruct the police, unless he also knows that the other drivers are committing an offence? The difference is subtle, but it is a difference nonetheless.


I guess because you just quoted "blah, blah, blah" you haven't understood the explanation I have already given, or more likely simply can't construct a decent argument to the contrary. As you say he admits warning people that there was a speed trap ahead. Sure, he doesn't _know_ whether they are speeding or not, but he is doing it _just in case _they are. And one thing is certain, he's not doing it just to get them to slow down to the speed limit for its own sake, or are you seriously going to suggest this guy flashes his lights at everyone all the time for that purpose? Of course he doesn't! So, if his intent wasn't to help people avoid getting caught by the camera what else could it possibly have been?

Somebody sees a police officer chasing someone and shouting, "Stop, thief!" and then tackles the officer to the ground thus enabling the person being chased to escape. He hadn't witnessed a theft and so doesn't _know_ that the person running was indeed a thief. According to your argument, that's perfectly okay. Really?

Frankly we all know exactly what he was doing and it seems you're just bloody-mindedly arguing a point for the sake of being argumentative. Bottom line, the court was happy enough that the evidence demonstrated his intent to convict him, so that's the end of that argument, isn't it?



jampott said:


> Bringing all sorts of unrelated and irrelevant arguments about the rights and wrongs of speeding, and using burglary as a comparative example is a great way of diverting attention away from the actual point here.


It's not diverting attention - it's illustrating the point. As I've said, in the example of the burglar we'd all accept my arguments. The point I'm making is that the _principles _are exactly the same, and in this case worth upholding because of the arguments I make about the necessity of traffic regulation. In that respect it is wholly relevant.

Gary, thanks for at least having a balanced enough view to take the time to research the offence in question, but your initial comments are a bit off the mark. After all, *nobody* has been convicted of 'intending to speed', have they?


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

That's all very well Gary, HOWEVER this case still relies on the ASSUMPTION that other motorists were speeding. Without that assumption, and hence the implication that the light-flasher's actions obstructed the plod's execution of their duties in catching them, this case doesn't really have anything to stand on. Without that assumption the plod were able to go about their jobs of measuring the speed of passing motorists, and their ability to do that has not been obstructed, as would be the case if they turned up and people saw them and slowed down so that they didn't register anyone speeding.

One might argue in that latter circumstance then that such a plod was obstructing himself by being visible. :lol: Unfortunately that sounds like a manifesto for secret policing, and that tends to be the preserve of despotic states.


----------



## bluush (Feb 24, 2010)

wow, fantastic debate this has turned into, pity it is on line and not all round a table with a pint or two in front of us.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

This thread has degenerated now. Mark no matter how much you say everybody speeds, you are still presuming the road users who were warned of the presence of a camera (we do not know if the man in question knew if the other cars were speeding at all).

It seems that this is an example of obstructing a police officer, one which I am stunned to discover. But this is by the by, there is no evidence of any speeding and although we're all fairly confident that people speed, and given that there was a camera placed there, it's even more likely. But the law cannot presume this without evidence.

This guy was not obstructing a police officer, he was alerting other road users to his presence.


----------



## bluush (Feb 24, 2010)

100% agree, i find it strange/wierd/scary that a serving police officer can make a statement that along the lines of him being certain that the vast majority speed.

it does not mater about stats, rumour, hearsay or anything bloody else, you need proof, 100% cast iron proof that someone was speeding at a certain moment in time at a specified location, i find it appaling that he thinks it right cos in balance of probability there was someone speeding that was alerted to the old guy flashing his lights.

f*ck me, did Ollly Cromwell do all that work and die for f*ck all, PROOF of a crime, not balance of probability of a crime, not cos the guy gives you some verbals about how easy it is to pick on the crimes of the motorist is what is important.

hearing the police with this kinda attitude make me worry, big time.


----------



## SAJ77 (Nov 16, 2008)

bluush said:


> 100% agree, i find it strange/wierd/scary that a serving police officer can make a statement that along the lines of him being certain that the vast majority speed.


I agree with Mark.

I think the majority 'speed' (or break the speed limits) - to varying extents. I know I do. :? 

I don't agree with the prosecution but it is irrelevant if someone was actually speeding - it is all about the 'offenders' (flashers) intention (mens rea). This must have been proven in interview....probably by admission I would guess.

Still a waste of time and public expense - when 'words of advice' would have sufficed.

Saj


----------



## dooka (Apr 28, 2006)

And what is wrong for letting other know, really, is there anything wrong..

We are allowed to warn other road users of other things out there, so why are scamerars different..


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

If a policeman is standing by the side of the road so that he is clearly visible whilst measuring the speed of drivers, is he obstructing himself and preventing the execution of his duties?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> If a policeman is standing by the side of the road so that he is clearly visible whilst measuring the speed of drivers, is he obstructing himself and preventing the execution of his duties?


Yes. He can take his hi-vis jacket to court.


----------



## SAJ77 (Nov 16, 2008)

dooka said:


> And what is wrong for letting other know, really, is there anything wrong..
> 
> We are allowed to warn other road users of other things out there, so why are scamerars different..


Exactly - slowing speeding motorists down is the the objective of the police etc, so the result of flashing of motorists by other drivers has the same result. 

If only common sense was allowed these days.....

Saj


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> Gary, thanks for at least having a balanced enough view to take the time to research the offence in question, but your initial comments are a bit off the mark. After all, *nobody* has been convicted of 'intending to speed', have they?


I was actually being a tad sarcastic on 'the intention' bit Mark, alluding to apparent fact from offence narrative that _intention to obstruct _also does also not appear to be an offence. I think the CPS were lucky/did well to secure this conviction and really do wonder how well it would stand up to scrutiny under appeal, taking in account some of the solid issues raised here, personalities nothwithstanding..

The comment in the CPS that made me cross was the use of *Speed TRAP*, rather than *Speed Safety Camera*, implying that motorists are being trapped. Entrapment is morally wrong, but legally acceptable in this case.

"The Law is an Ass", as I think Lord Denning once famously said. But it is the job of Police to interpret how that should be enforced. That this specific offence scenario is listed in CPS guidelines, does make it clear why prosecution was brought. I don't suppose it is the first conviction, and if it is, then the precedent is set, unless overturned on appeal.

So the message is: flashers beware.

I often flash oncoming cars, if there is a hazard around the last bend I rounded - a queue, an accident, a broken down car in road, herding cows, speed trap etc. I will now desist on the latter, which I think is a shame, since I really feel that getting others drivers awareness is key to getting them to slow down appropriately and not just sail into an accident blackspot.

Moving argument, many GPS safetsystems rely on folk submitting rapid detail of mobile camera locations to a database for othersto share, often rewarding the supplier of information. I assume that this is techncally obstruction too, and therefore llegal? Where does it end?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

If we're being ultra-pedantic, I guess we have to examine what the police officer's duties actually were at the time the offence was being committed.

I do understand this "intent" stuff - really I do - and I fully understand that the bloke hasn't done himself any favours whatsoever, as he's probably landed himself right in it. But none of this will ultimately sway my opinion that this prosecution is not in the public interest, and that it makes the police look trivial, vindictive, spiteful and wasteful.

In all honesty, I don't drive as much as I used to... but I do still get out there and see the "real world". On the roads near me, I do witness speeding. I even go over the limit myself on occasion. Indeed, there are a few sections of road where it appears that 50% of traffic exceeds the limit some days... although I can travel exactly the same road another day, and not a single vehicle can be seen exceeding the limit. There are also sections of road where I honestly cannot ever recall seeing anyone exceeding the posted limit.

I can only assume that Mark must travel different roads to me, if he can be certain that (on any given road, at any given moment) there is always someone speeding... but even if he does, that assumption clearly does not extend to some (most?) of the roads which *I* travel on. This blindingly stupid generalisation just makes everything which comes after it sound like "blah blah blah" to me. I'd love to see you try that one in court in front of a judge and defense solicitor, as they will tear it to shreds.

Quite interesting that Mark thinks I'm following his "threads" and contradicting him whenever he shows up. Actually, the reverse is more likely. I posted in this thread a fair few hours (days even?) before Mark arrived with his "Devil's Advocate" post... so NOW who is being deliberately inflammatory and arguing just for argument's sake? :lol:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I hope it is overturned on appeal.

Seems this one was.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=11239

Similiar circumstances, except this lorry driver "waved".

Since there was no evidence (proof) that other drivers saw his signal, it was overturned. Seems it didn't really matter what his "intent" was.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

> Lorry driver Charles Glendinning was taken all the way to the House of Lords by the Director of Public Prosecutions after he successfully appealed against a court decision. Taunton magistrates initially convicted him of wilfully obstructing the police when he waved at other drivers to warn of a speed trap on the A303 at Tinkers Hill, Stoke Trister.
> 
> Reuters reports: "Although the decision was overturned at Taunton Crown Court, the DPP took the case to the High Court, which in turn also backed Glendinning. Now, three law lords, headed by a former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, have again ruled in Glendinning's favour by refusing the DPP permission to appeal. When the High Court considered the case in February, *Mr Justice Owen said there was no evidence that any of the motorists warned by Glendinning had been breaking the speed limit or were about to do so.*
> 
> Owen added that some people might think the police ought to appreciate the efforts of others to prevent speeding."


I've put in bold the important part.

Isn't that what I said?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> > Lorry driver Charles Glendinning was taken all the way to the House of Lords by the Director of Public Prosecutions after he successfully appealed against a court decision. Taunton magistrates initially convicted him of wilfully obstructing the police when he waved at other drivers to warn of a speed trap on the A303 at Tinkers Hill, Stoke Trister.
> >
> > Reuters reports: "Although the decision was overturned at Taunton Crown Court, the DPP took the case to the High Court, which in turn also backed Glendinning. Now, three law lords, headed by a former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, have again ruled in Glendinning's favour by refusing the DPP permission to appeal. When the High Court considered the case in February, *Mr Justice Owen said there was no evidence that any of the motorists warned by Glendinning had been breaking the speed limit or were about to do so.*
> >
> ...


I think that is the sentiment of a few posters on here. Thing is that few can either be bothered or willing take financial risk of appeal cost implications.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

...and a link to the appeal.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /2333.html



> On the hearing of the appeal, the Crown Court acceded to the submission made at the conclusion of the prosecution case that there was no case for the respondent to answer on the ground that there was no evidence that any motorist in the vicinity at whom any warning might have been directed, was committing, or was likely to commit, a speeding offence.


The vital question:


> "For there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty, by the giving of a warning of the presence of a speed trap, is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned either were themselves exceeding the speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap?"


The response:


> "However we held that the persons at whom the hand signals were directed had to be persons who were either actually driving in excess of the speed limit or were likely so to drive at that place and time, and in respect of whom the warning could operate to prevent or obstruct the police in the performance of their duty to detect speeding motorists. Unless there was evidence that there were drivers who were driving in excess of the speed limit or who were likely to do so, there was no obstruction of the police. Here is was accepted that there was no evidence that anybody acted in response to the warning and nobody was detected speeding. Having seen the video we concluded that nobody was speeding. We likened the situation to that which would exist if there had been no other traffic in the vicinity of the [respondent]. Even if he had been trying to warn other motorists there was no offence known to the criminal law of attempting to obstruct the police in the execution of their duty. We distinguished the case of Green v Moore in which, but for the tip off, the police would have detected after hours drinking."


Want more?


> 'In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime may be suspended while there is danger of detection.' I desire to repeat those words."


That was precisely my response at the "burglar" analogy.



> As Donaldson LJ observed in Green v Moore, when considering a charge of wilful obstruction of a police officer in the execution of his duty, the court must address the three questions propounded by Lord Parker CJ in Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414 at 419, namely:
> 
> (1) Was there any obstruction of a constable?
> 
> ...


Care to argue with 3 Law Lords, Mark?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > > Lorry driver Charles Glendinning was taken all the way to the House of Lords by the Director of Public Prosecutions after he successfully appealed against a court decision. Taunton magistrates initially convicted him of wilfully obstructing the police when he waved at other drivers to warn of a speed trap on the A303 at Tinkers Hill, Stoke Trister.
> ...


It isn't the sentiment of Mark, who has nailed his colours to a different mast, and believes completely the opposite. According to Mark, it is only necessary to ASSUME that some of the other drivers MUST have been speeding.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Well it seems there is case-law to support the Grimsby driver, I hope he discovers this and appeals.

Nice bit of research there.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Dash said:


> Well it seems there is case-law to support the Grimsby driver, I hope he discovers this and appeals.
> 
> Nice bit of research there.


Yeah, I wonder if Mark still believes that he is more "informed" than anyone else, and that none of us have the slightest idea about "law". :lol: :roll:


----------



## SAJ77 (Nov 16, 2008)

Dash said:


> Well it seems there is case-law to support the Grimsby driver, I hope he discovers this and appeals.
> 
> Nice bit of research there.


If you can find case-law like this, you would have thought his solicitor would have know about this case or similar and 'got him off' in the first place! :?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

SAJ77 said:


> Dash said:
> 
> 
> > Well it seems there is case-law to support the Grimsby driver, I hope he discovers this and appeals.
> ...


Maybe he wasn't very well represented. I already posted said case-law.


----------



## SAJ77 (Nov 16, 2008)

jampott said:


> Maybe he wasn't very well represented.


Exactly - I would want my money back :lol:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Or even not represented at all.

Although as I said earlier, I expect there is more to the case than was reported by the press.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Or maybe you should consider that the reason the case law hasn't been used in his defence is because it doesn't actually help his cause in the first place. Just maybe his lawyers know the law better than you (fancy that!), because here's an example of digging up some information but then misinterpreting it to support your argument. I don't need to argue with three law lords - I just need to correct your misinterpretation of their judgement. You need to read it more carefully.

The reason the appeal was upheld was because no evidence was produced to show anybody was there whose offences could have been prevented. As it says, _evidentially_ it equates to him waving his hand at an empty road. However it makes perfectly clear what I have been saying; it is _not necessary_ to prove anyone was _actually_ speeding - just that there were people there who could have been.

I quote your own source:



> The court therefore distinguished the case from the interpretation of the facts in Bastable advanced by Donaldson LJ in Green v Moore, namely that there were motorists who were *likely* to exceed the speed limit over the measured distance.


Therefore it is only necessary to show that there _could_ have been people speeding there. An equivalent is in legislation relating to public order offences. An offence is committed where people's behaviour is likely to cause harrassment, alarm or distress. To prove the offence it is not necessary to produce evidence that any specific person was caused harrassment, alarm or distress - just that there were people there who _could_ have been. Public order cases have failed pure and simply because the prosecution provided no evidence that other people were present, even though the circumstances made it obvious that there would have been.

Yet another illustration of this principle is prosecutions relating to prostitutes loitering with intent. You have to produce evidence that their behaviour was liable to cause nuisance to local residents. That doesn't mean that every time you arrest someone for this that you go knocking on doors asking people if that specific person was actually causing them nuisance at that time. No, when you have a location where this happens regularly you get one statement from a resident to evidence they are caused nuisance by this kind of behaviour and that's filed and produced for any subsequent cases at that location. It's basically 'background' evidence. But simply forget to put a copy of that statement in your file when it goes to court and the prosecution will fail, and if you haven't put it in the original hearing you can't bring it in later on even if it's established that the evidence existed at the time of the original trial.

Of course common sense tells you that there always _could_ be someone speeding on that road (presumably it wasn't physically impossible) but it is the nature of our legal system that sometimes cases fail simply by forgetting to state the obvious - and that's all that has happened in this appeal case of yours. They've forgotten to include the 'background' evidence. Reading through the judgement it is clear that there was some video evidence that showed other motorists were actually there. Had that video also shown clearly that people were speeding then there wouldn't have been an issue and the appeal would have failed. Not specifically because it would have showed the people he waved at were speeding (though it would have done that too and that would be best evidence), but simply because it would have showed that people do speed at that location. However the video didn't show that to the satisfaction of the judges so the only additional evidence that was necessary for the prosecution to have succeeded was for an officer to stand in the witness box and say that at some time someone had been caught speeding on that road, or even better that people are caught speeding there regularly. That would satisfy the point that amongst the people he was waving at it was possible there would be someone who was _likely_ to be speeding - but it seems they just forgot to do that at the trial, and because of legal principles you can't intruduce that extra evidence at the time of the appeal. It's just a simple omission in already long-established legal principles of evidence. A canny lawyer has spotted that and taken that case to appeal on that technicality. It doesn't make any major point in law relevant to this later case, which is probably the reason it wasn't used by his defence lawyers - not because they're idiots for knowing less law than you.

You've been labouring the point about there being no evidence of anybody speeding, though I've read nothing about this case that suggests the prosecution _didn't_ produce evidence that people were speeding! Reviewing the thread both Jampott and Spandex seem to have made that assumption from the start and everyone else has carried it through. You've quite probably been making a wholly empty argument. However, as I've said _correctly_, it doesn't matter even if there wasn't evidence presented that the people he flashed his lights at were actually speeding themselves. As the judgement _you have produced _clearly says, it is only necessary to show people were there and that they _could_ have been speeding.

There's nothing 'scary' or 'disturbing' or 'appalling' about a police officer correctly stating the law - indeed, isn't it exactly what you should expect of us? I think people are being rather over-dramatic for the sake of effect there.

So sorry, you haven't found the killer blow you thought you had. We will obviously talk around in circles forever on this. You are not going to be convinced by my argument and were never going to be, but that was never my intention. My case has been stated and I've nothing more to add. We're all just repeating ourselves now so I'll leave you to have the last word on the matter if you wish.

As always the debate has been fun. I'll look forward to the next one. :wink:


----------



## BLinky (Jul 3, 2009)

fine to make your point but did you have to rub it in his face? ^^


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

BLinky said:


> fine to make your point but did you have to rub it in his face? ^^


That's not Mark rubbing my face into it... :lol:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mark, you still aren't getting the point which I have been trying to make all along... or you ARE getting it, but are being deliberately obtuse.

I believe you have also misinterpreted the judgment for your own benefits.

I'm not planning on sifting through the evidence bundle for the first trial(s) but this snippet I found useful in the appeal:



> In this case the facts as found by the Crown Court were that the hand signals given by the respondent were intended to warn motorists approaching from behind to reduce their speed because of the presence ahead of a police trap, but that there was no evidence that any such drivers were either driving in excess of the speed limit or were likely to do so. Hence, the Crown Court judge's conclusion that the situation was analogous to that which would obtain if there was no other traffic in the vicinity.


There is no argument or contradiction that there were no other drivers present. Indeed, both defence and prosecution appear to fully accept that Glendinning made his hand signals at other motorists. So... there's no claim that no drivers were present... just no evidence that any of them were driving in excess of the speed limit _or were likely to do so_.

I do not have enough information to hand to clarify why this conclusion was reached... however, I have seen nothing within the judgment to confirm (or deny, I'll admit) that any "background evidence" was not submitted by the prosecution.

Like I said... nobody is arguing for one second that there were no other motorists around, but the higher courts (and the Law Lords) have not made the automatic assumption that they _could _have been speeding, which is what you believe makes the case a slam-dunk for the prosecution - as surely the very presence of motorists in the vicinity implies a greater than zero chance of speeding occuring. I have not yet read anything about the Glendinning case which suggests there was direct evidence to prove that motorists were NOT speeding, hence I must assume the case turned on there being no reliance on an assumption that they _could _have been.

I cheerfully admit that there always could be someone speeding on any given piece of road... I just will not submit to the absolute assumption that there will ALWAYS be someone speeding on any given piece of road.

It is clear that, in the current case, it should be necessary for the prosecution to PROVE that the specific drivers he warned WERE committing an offence (impossible) or WERE LIKELY to be commiting an offence b the time they reached the measured distance over which the trap was operating.

Now, I will say again... I will cheerfully admit that there COULD have been someone speeding... but I have yet to see you put forward any evidence that any of the drivers he warned WERE LIKELY to be committing an offence.

I will repeat again the question which the Glendinning appeal was setup to answer:



> "For there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty, by the giving of a warning of the presence of a speed trap, is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned either were themselves exceeding the speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap?"


Therefore it is NOT enough simply to point to the fact that there were other motorists present who COULD have been speeding - which is the point you make, Mark, because the 3 Law Lords answered this question in the affirmitive. This is not interpretation or supposition:



> I would therefore answer the question posed for the consideration of this court in the affirmative and dismiss the appeal.


Nothing to do with public order offences, harrassment, alarm or distress. Stick to the facts of the case at hand, and the specific wording of the appeal. Likewise loitering and everything else which requires "background evidence".

In the appeal, if the video evidence had shown motorists speeding, before slowing down in time for the trap, then I agree that the appeal would probably have failed - as it would have been produced as evidence to show that motorists were LIKELY to have been committing an offence when they passed the camera / radar - even though it could not be proven that they WERE committing an offence when the video was taken.

Another possible scenario may be that the video showed other motorists, with no evidence whatsoever that they were speeding. I'm sure it is possible to analyse a video, verify specific distances between points and time elapsed and work out an approximate speed of some of the vehicles. I don't know whether this was done or not - just that the video was not used as evidence that motorists were LIKELY to be speeding when they passed the camera / radar.

I do not agree that it would have been sufficient (at the original trial) for a polic officer to stand in the witness box and say that, at some time, someone had been caught speeding there (regularly or not). My interpretation of the appeal ruling is that the law lords weren't (for whatever reason) faced with this question.

The fact remains that, like the more recent case, Glendinning WAS tried in his local court and found guilty on the basis of the evidence which was provided - so whatever evidence there was available was, initially, deemed sufficient for a conviction by the judge who heard the case. The subsequent appeal (reaching the Law Lords) certainly distinguishes between "could" (your word) and "likely" (the judges' word), and it is entirely probably (in my opinion) that this is the subtle but crucial difference.

It also happens to be the point I've been trying to pick you up on all along. It is not a valid assumption that there will always be someone speeding. Sure, there could be... but there is still a burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that it is LIKELY... which is very different from POSSIBLE.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I'm gonna sum up what I actually think of it... 

As far as I know, a police trap works like this.

a) Police officer forms a "prior opinion" that a car is speeding.
b) Police officer then points detection equipment at the car to confirm his opinion.

In other words, the detection equipment is used to back-up the officer's initial view (or not) as to his/her belief that the vehicle is exceeding the posted limit. That's certainly how things were done last time I bothered to check.

For someone to have been LIKELY to have committed an offence, surely that would require a) - and (by defintion, else no obstruction could take place) the driver must have slowed down before b).

I do not think that "likely" should be interpreted as "people regularly speed along this road, therefore it is likely that at least one of these seven drivers were." Instead, I believe it should be interpreted on an evidential basis, using the prima facie opinion of the roadside police officer.

Show me a prima facie case that these specific drivers were speeding, and were slowed down by the "flasher", and I will happily concede that the police were preventing from obtaining the evidence they needed in order to prove the "offence" which they reasonably believed was being committed.

You either obstruct a policeman or you don't. I don't think there is a "intent to obstruct..." as an alternative (lesser) charge, as there is with a lot of other offences.

So if the duty of the police officer was to collect the "evidence" based on their prior opinion, and the "flasher" prevented this from happening, then any appeal is likely to fail on the basis that the drivers were LIKELY to be committing an offence, and the obstruction has prevented the offence from being proven... but if there was no prior opinion, I don't see how the prosecution could prove that it was "likely" that someone would be committing an offence.

To complicate their task even further... the prior opinion and actual measurement, in practice, probably take place literally no more than a couple of seconds apart. Time for someone to see, interpret and react to a flash of someone's lights and scrub off enough speed to be no longer committing an offence? Almost certainly not.

It's a shame Mark doesn't want to contribute any more to this debate, as I found his interpretations enlightening.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I forgot to ask Mark for his comments on the Nose Blowing thread:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=162796&hilit=police

Which was another instance of Mark jumping to the defence of his colleagues... and another set of sweeping generalisations. In that thread, it was yet another cynical assumption that someone who is charged with an offence must be guilty of it, as there's no smoke without fire. 

Having done a hatchet job on the guy for going to the press about it, and claiming that we don't hear anything about these cases afterwards, because the accused never likes to admit they've been prosecuted, I was a little surprised that Mark didn't comment further when the case was dropped.


----------

