Warning drivers to slow down leads to criminal conviction
greg66_tri_v2.0
Posts: 7,172
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... y-CPS.html
Quite puzzled by how as a matter of logic what the accused did could be characterised as obstructing an officer in the course of their duty.
[Yikes! Posted this in the graveyard by accident. That's a quiet ol' place, and no mistaking]
Quite puzzled by how as a matter of logic what the accused did could be characterised as obstructing an officer in the course of their duty.
[Yikes! Posted this in the graveyard by accident. That's a quiet ol' place, and no mistaking]
0
Comments
-
The person was preventing the officer from catching people, who would normally be breaking the law, by advising them not to break the law.
It's like when little urban kids shout "Feds! Dust!"* They are suddenly aiding and abetting....
*Translation: "Rozzers, leg it!"
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
That's crazy. I thought the idea of 'speed cameras' and 'mobile speed traps' was to increase safety at accident hot spots and to reduce the average speed in certain places, not just a mobile cash machine. How naive :roll:FCN 2 to 80
-
So, by that logic neighbourhood watches are obstructing the law?
What a load of bollocksPurveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
* Paging Breakfast to this thread“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Clever Pun wrote:So, by that logic neighbourhood watches are obstructing the law?
What a load of bollocks
Nope, it's more like standing in Top Shop and pointing at the store detective and shouting:
"Don't shoplift when he's around"
Daft analogy really, shoplifters don't kill a thousand people a year.
Obstructing a police officer in the course of their duty is a criminal offence, Mr Thompson is a twit, he should have said he flicked his beams accidently.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Obstructing a police officer in the course of their duty is a criminal offence, Mr Thompson is a twit, he should have said he flicked his beams accidently.
Duty was to catch people speeding though, and Mr Thompson seems to have stopped people speeding rather than stopping them getting caught after being spotted speeding.
Huge difference telling a mugger that there's a copper around the corner vs tripping the copper up after they've given chase.0 -
TWH wrote:* Paging Breakfast to this threadmbc wrote:"Don't shoplift when he's around"
Daft analogy really, shoplifters don't kill a thousand people a year.
You couldn't script it. You really can't.
Damn those mass murdering cars.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
dhope wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Obstructing a police officer in the course of their duty is a criminal offence, Mr Thompson is a twit, he should have said he flicked his beams accidently.
Duty was to catch people speeding though, and Mr Thompson seems to have stopped people speeding rather than stopping them getting caught after being spotted speeding.
Huge difference telling a mugger that there's a copper around the corner vs tripping the copper up after they've given chase.
In this case, the Appellent is the DPP.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v GLENDINNING (2005)
DC (Scott Baker LJ, Owen J) 13/10/2005
CRIMINAL LAW - POLICE - ROAD TRAFFIC
OBSTRUCTION OF POLICE : SPEEDING : WARNING MOTORISTS OF SPEED TRAPS : WARNING DRIVERS : ACTUS REUS OF OFFENCE
Where an individual gave a warning to motorists of the presence of a police speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap for the individual to commit an offence of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty.
The appellant appealed by way of case stated against a decision of the Crown court that the respondent (G) had no case to answer to a charge of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. Police constables had established a speed trap on a lay-by of a dual carriageway. The constables observed G making a slow-down signal with his hand to drivers behind him. G was subsequently convicted in the magistrates' court of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. G successfully appealed his conviction to the Crown court, which held that the video evidence showed that none of the drivers were travelling in excess of the speed limit and that they had not reacted to G's signals by slowing down. Accordingly the Crown court held that G had no case to answer. The issue was whether, for there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty by warning others of the presence of a speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap.
HELD: The actus reus of the offence could only be established where the prosecuting authority proved that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap. On the facts of the instant case it was clear that there was no actual obstruction by G, Bastable v Little (1907) 1 KB 59, Betts v Stevens (1910) 1 KB 1, Green v Moore (1982) 126 SJ 79 considered.
Appeal dismissed.
That is NOT someone promoting road safety, it is someone preventing the police from catching people who break the law.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:That is NOT someone promoting road safety, it is someone preventing the police from catching people who break the law.
Clarification please: is "that" Glendinning's actions or Thompson's actions?0 -
In my view....
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... sc&start=0bails87 wrote:But maybe it's more analogous to following the police's drug raid team around with a massive loudspeaker, with a message on repeat saying "the police are coming. Flush your drugs away now. The police are coming. Flush your drugs away now....".
The police turn up, raid the house, all the drugs are gone, so you can;t prove a crime therefore the guy with the loudspeaker was doing nothing wrong, presumably?0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:That is NOT someone promoting road safety, it is someone preventing the police from catching people who break the law.
Preventing police having the opportunity to observe someone who otherwise may break the law is not the same as preventing them taking action once someone has broken the law though. I'm not disputing that Thompson may have lowered the number of people caught that day but it'll have been through preventing them committing the crime rather than preventing them being caught for it.
It's that distinction that makes me surprised he could have been prosecuted for it.0 -
dhope wrote:Preventing police having the opportunity to observe someone who otherwise may break the law is not the same as preventing them taking action once someone has broken the law though. I'm not disputing that Thompson may have lowered the number of people caught that day but it'll have been through preventing them committing the crime rather than preventing them being caught for it.
It's that distinction that makes me surprised he could have been prosecuted for it.
Indeed. Replace speeding with murder, or mugging, or burglary, or any other crime in fact that doesn't raise funds for the policeman's ball and see how stupid this bloke's conviction now appears. Are the courts seriously telling us that they'd rather a murder / mugging / burglary happened so that the police could catch someone red-handed committing that crime, or is it better in some way that the crime was prevented. The argument that it might merely be moved on is specious at best.0 -
The comments beneath the story in the Daily mail are predictably outraged middle Englanders comparing trafpol to nazis.
Apart from this one:
We live on that road.
And were part of a petition to get a speed camera on it. How would you like to live on a road that drivers use as a racetrack with no respect for the people who live along it or our children who on occasion have to cross it.
This person is an idiot who was aiding and abetting all the speeding idiots who endanger our children.
I'm sure none of you would have the same tolerance for speeding drivers down your own streets so how about having a bit of respect for us. The Police are doing a great job, despite callous, selfish and heartless thugs like Mr Thompson who aid and abet these speeders who endanger young children's lives. .
- Dex, Grimsby, 05/1/2011 00:110 -
bails87 wrote:In my view....
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... sc&start=0bails87 wrote:But maybe it's more analogous to following the police's drug raid team around with a massive loudspeaker, with a message on repeat saying "the police are coming. Flush your drugs away now. The police are coming. Flush your drugs away now....".
The police turn up, raid the house, all the drugs are gone, so you can;t prove a crime therefore the guy with the loudspeaker was doing nothing wrong, presumably?
Don't really follow this. If there were never any drugs in the street in the first place, how have the police been obstructed in the execution of their duty?
Similarly, if (as in Glendinning) there is no evidence to show that anyone who was flashed was actually speeding at the time they were flashed, how were the police obstructed?
Your example only "works" if you assume that the residents/drivers were criminals in the first place; and as you can't prove that as against them, it seems a bit harsh to take it as read as against someone else.
More to the point, isn't a reduction in the number of speeding motorists, or destruction of prohibited drugs a good thing, however it is brought about?0 -
CiB wrote:dhope wrote:Preventing police having the opportunity to observe someone who otherwise may break the law is not the same as preventing them taking action once someone has broken the law though. I'm not disputing that Thompson may have lowered the number of people caught that day but it'll have been through preventing them committing the crime rather than preventing them being caught for it.
It's that distinction that makes me surprised he could have been prosecuted for it.
Indeed. Replace speeding with murder, or mugging, or burglary, or any other crime in fact that doesn't raise funds for the policeman's ball and see how stupid this bloke's conviction now appears. Are the courts seriously telling us that they'd rather a murder / mugging / burglary happened so that the police could catch someone red-handed committing that crime, or is it better in some way that the crime was prevented. The argument that it might merely be moved on is specious at best.
Speeding fines don't pay for parties for police officers. The fines are hypothecated for road safety so muppet drivers pay to make the roads safer, result!0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:The comments beneath the story in the Daily mail are predictably outraged middle Englanders comparing trafpol to nazis.
Apart from this one:
We live on that road.
And were part of a petition to get a speed camera on it. How would you like to live on a road that drivers use as a racetrack with no respect for the people who live along it or our children who on occasion have to cross it.
This person is an idiot who was aiding and abetting all the speeding idiots who endanger our children.
I'm sure none of you would have the same tolerance for speeding drivers down your own streets so how about having a bit of respect for us. The Police are doing a great job, despite callous, selfish and heartless thugs like Mr Thompson who aid and abet these speeders who endanger young children's lives. .
- Dex, Grimsby, 05/1/2011 00:11
Another new pseudonym?
One might assume that "Dex" moved into his house knowing that the road was a racetrack, had kids in that knowledge...
Don't have much sympathy for those who move to a house under the flightpath then want the flights restricted, frankly.0 -
I'm not sure where the Nazi comparison is.
I can also sympathise with the residents on that road. It is annoying when someone, no matter how altruristic, prevents what you seemingly percieve as the course of justice.
In their mind they want people who speed along their road to stop (in the long term) and punished to stop them doing so again. Sure what the guy did may have prevented people getting caught and or slowed them down then. But he also hindered the longterm solution of catching speeders. Should he have been prosecuted? Seems harsh.
If the road is notorious for speeding then a few dozen - hundred tickets might get them to stop (cite: trafpol in force stopping RLJers when their is a tube strike). But so would a speed camera (though most people drive at 40mph these days anyway...)Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Personal experience here. Not that road, but the bit of dual c/way that I use. My first week in this job I was polling up the d c/way at the same speed as a few others and was slowed by the flashing of an on-coming car. We all know what it means, and it did. I now know that there's as good a chance as any that there might be a van waiting for speeding traffic to loom into view round the long sweeping bend, so I now never go over the limit up there - I know I might get caught.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:The comments beneath the story in the Daily mail are predictably outraged middle Englanders comparing trafpol to nazis.
Apart from this one:
We live on that road.
And were part of a petition to get a speed camera on it. How would you like to live on a road that drivers use as a racetrack with no respect for the people who live along it or our children who on occasion have to cross it.
This person is an idiot who was aiding and abetting all the speeding idiots who endanger our children.
I'm sure none of you would have the same tolerance for speeding drivers down your own streets so how about having a bit of respect for us. The Police are doing a great job, despite callous, selfish and heartless thugs like Mr Thompson who aid and abet these speeders who endanger young children's lives. .
- Dex, Grimsby, 05/1/2011 00:11
So who loses out? I kept my clean licence and 60 quid in my back pocket, there's one less car going over the limit up there every day that I'm not on the bike [and when I'm on it], and I suppose less chance of there being a small aeroplane-style crash up there. But PC Plod with his shiny white van failed to recoup some of the cost of parking up there for the morning rush hour. Tough luck - bottom line is fewer people speed up there because we know that the van might be out. Fewer people speeding is a good thing, because some drivers flash their lights to warn on-coming traffic.0 -
I'm going to pick on Greg....Greg66 wrote:More to the point, isn't a reduction in the number of speeding motorists, or destruction of prohibited drugs a good thing, however it is brought about?
No. Not always.Don't have much sympathy for those who move to a house under the flightpath then want the flights restricted, frankly.
Not everyone gets a choice of where they can live. Though I am certainly not living on a main road.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Greg66 wrote:
Don't have much sympathy for those who move to a house under the flightpath then want the flights restricted, frankly.
Ooooh that's a real pet peeve of mine.
My thinking is that if they pre-date the planes, then fair play, but if vice versa, no dice.
EDIT: Furthermore, are the warning signs that tell you about speed cameras not obstructing the course of justice?0 -
What if they move in and then the flight path is changed so that it is directly over their house?
What if they simply didn't know?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Not a valid analogy tho; how about you move into a street that looks nice on the afternoons that you view, but turns out to be a hot spot for drug dealing or prossies come nightfall? It's not unreasonable to expect the law to get involved then surely?lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:
Don't have much sympathy for those who move to a house under the flightpath then want the flights restricted, frankly.
Ooooh that's a real pet peeve of mine.
My thinking is that if they pre-date the planes, then fair play, but if vice versa, no dice.
EDIT: Furthermore, are the warning signs that tell you about speed cameras not obstructing the course of justice?0 -
[/quote]DonDaddyD wrote:I'm going to pick on Greg....Greg66 wrote:More to the point, isn't a reduction in the number of speeding motorists, or destruction of prohibited drugs a good thing, however it is brought about?
No. Not always.
Step forward and speak up!
So, when is a reduction in the number of speeding motorists, or the destruction of prohibited drugs, not a good thing?0 -
Comparing speeding drivers to aeroplanes is silly.
I'm not sure how you would know that speeding was rife in an area before moving in, but is the argument really that you should accept criminal behaviour because it existed prior to your moving to the area?
If drivers use your road as a racetrack then you have every right to lobby for trafpol, speeding is cited as one of the main anti-social behaviours residents complain about. If the police responded by saying "Drivers broke the law on that road before you moved in" I'd slap their legs and call them a tit.0 -
CiB wrote:
Not a valid analogy tho; how about you move into a street that looks nice on the afternoons that you view, but turns out to be a hot spot for drug dealing or prossies come nightfall? It's not unreasonable to expect the law to get involved then surely?lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:
Don't have much sympathy for those who move to a house under the flightpath then want the flights restricted, frankly.
Ooooh that's a real pet peeve of mine.
My thinking is that if they pre-date the planes, then fair play, but if vice versa, no dice.
EDIT: Furthermore, are the warning signs that tell you about speed cameras not obstructing the course of justice?
Eh? I was literally responding to the quoted point, nothing else.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:What if they move in and then the flight path is changed so that it is directly over their house?
What if they simply didn't know?
You move to Nearanairfieldville, you really ought to expect planes.
If you are unaware of a nearby airfield when moving to an area, you're a muppet.
Simple!0 -
I flash other drivers to warn them of speed traps.
I first however make an assessement of wether or not I think they are worthy of my help.
If they're in a vehicle I deem to be significantly better than mine I do nothing - then have a wee chortle when the hairdryer steps out.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Greg66 wrote:One might assume that "Dex" moved into his house knowing that the road was a racetrack, had kids in that knowledge...
Don't have much sympathy for those who move to a house under the flightpath then want the flights restricted, frankly.
Planes using a flightpath are not doing something that is banned because it presents a danger to others. Speeding drivers are.John Stevenson0
