Lords back lorry driver who warned of speed trap
Discussion
vonhosen said:
So we are back to my earlier point of moral equivalence. Is somebody warns a split second before a policeman has formed an opinion its legal, a split second later its illegal. Not a good way to operate the law at all.
The split second doesn't matter for the wilfulness of the obstruction. The intent is still there, it just results in there being insufficient evidence to prove it because there is not the required evidence of speeding.
In other words any warning to a person that there is a speed trap is illegal, its just that you cant do anything about it?
And you think that makes good law?
Any warning given to anyone speeding, where the intention of the warning is to wilfully obstruct a police officer fromgaining the required evidence, is illegal.
You can only be prosecuted for that offence where the Police have sufficient evidence of it. (This is not unusual, it is common will all offences that somebody may commit an offence, but prosecution not be posssible without sufficient evidence of it.)
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 17:35
Yes, but my point was somewhat different, hence the question about it being good law in these circumstances.
For instance I might be out with a friend who has drunk a little too much and is making too much noise. If I spot a police car and warn him to calm down or get done fot Drunk and Disorderly behaviour, have I obstructed the Police?
Where do you draw the line between preventing an offense (ones duty I understand) and obstructing the Police?
vonhosen said:Precisely. This will in most circumstnaces with a flow of traffic and no specific warning to any particular car be a very difficult offence to prove.
A warning given to anyone speeding, where the intention of the warning is to wilfully obstruct a police officer from gaining the required evidence, is illegal.
You can only be prosecuted for that offence where the Police have sufficient evidence of it. (This is not unusual, it is common with all offences that somebody may commit an offence, but prosecution not be posssible without sufficient evidence of it.)
Zod said:Yes, and now there's a big hint not to bother with obstruction in this context, both in the ruling itself and in the Law Lord's comment that police ought to be grateful if they get help to stop vehicles speeding - I bet a noble tongue was planted firmly in cheek for that bit of guidance, or is it a code of practice
A warning given to anyone speeding, where the intention of the warning is to wilfully obstruct a police officer from gaining the required evidence, is illegal.
You can only be prosecuted for that offence where the Police have sufficient evidence of it. (This is not unusual, it is common with all offences that somebody may commit an offence, but prosecution not be posssible without sufficient evidence of it.)
This will be disputed of course, but there's very little point in going down this route now. For example - speed trap starts up. Safety minded local person thinks "gosh an accident hotspot, better go and warn drivers they're at risk". Aforementioned public spirited person pitches up half a mile away round a bend out of sight of police where drivers are also out of sight, with big sign SPEED CHECK AT ACCIDENT HOTSPOT AHEAD. Plod are powerless under the wilful obstruction route, but you can bet they'll try something under the Ways and Means Act. Probably invoke terrorist legislation.
Time will tell.
turbobloke said:
This will be disputed of course, but there's very little point in going down this route now. For example - speed trap starts up. Safety minded local person thinks "gosh an accident hotspot, better go and warn drivers they're at risk". Aforementioned public spirited person pitches up half a mile away round a bend out of sight of police where drivers are also out of sight, with big sign SPEED CHECK AT ACCIDENT HOTSPOT AHEAD. Plod are powerless under the wilful obstruction route, but you can bet they'll try something under the Ways and Means Act. Probably invoke terrorist legislation.
It astounded me that in this very situation with that old boy about a year ago they gave him points on his licence aswell as fining him. I still can't understand what justification there can be for attacking someone's licence when they weren't even in their vehicle when the "offence" was committed. It's all very wanky, and does the cops no credit.
VH said:
Camera warning signs are to discourage offence in the first place, the headlamp flash is to prevent a detection of an offence that is already being committed.
Not so VH. In North Wales they bought a few thousand signs and there are few roads that do not have plenty of them. They have no meaning other than intimidation.
Where there are speed traps I may flash people to remind themn to take extra special care not to let their speed creep up over the limit. Plenty of people do that to me too. No offence need be committed. Sorry to disappoint you
>> Edited by Richard C on Tuesday 9th May 22:42
vonhosen said:No, flashing car headlights doesn't prevent detection, because a headlamp flash away from police will neither impair their vision nor affect their equipment. It cannot slow a car down either, photons exert very light pressure. The driver of the flashed car may interpret the flash as a warning and lift their foot a bit to slow down, or they might think wtf...and the motorist making a signal of some sort has no knowledge of the speed of another car and no knowledge of any detection. All this is so tenuous and impossible to link together, it's amazing it took the HoL to work it out. And after the ruling, police won't go there now imo. It would be interesting to hear from any PH BiB prepared to give a view on the future policing of speedtrap warnings - any view expressed not necessarily corresponding to that of their employer of course
the headlamp flash is to prevent a detection of an offence that is already being committed.
vonhosen said:It already has been ruled on. If no opinion of speed has been formed by BiB, there can be no speeding offence around which wilfully to obstruct police. The Flasher's Charter is now operational...
The primary evidence of if speeding is taking place would be provided by the Police. The intent of the accused would be ruled on by the court.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 9th May 22:10
turbobloke said:
"...the headlamp flash is to prevent a detection of an offence that is already being committed."
VH said that?
How come vonhosen - the only offence your remark appears to apply to is speeding. Do motorists driving along have the means to determine whether approaching vehicles are breaking the speed limit?
The primary evidence of if speeding is taking place would be provided by the Police.
The intent of the accused would be ruled on by the court.
[quote=turbobloke]"...the headlamp flash is to prevent a detection of an offence that is already being committed."
VH said that?
This is not true most of the time. It is usual in Dorset that whilst driving toward a village, with a speed trap in it, whilst still in a NSL that drivers coming towards you flash you. At the time they flash you you are not commiting any offence.
Basically I do not believe that there are any instances where the Police, or their friends in the Partnerships, have formed a prior opinion of speed above the limit and the offending car reduces speed prior to being zapped. All the traps I have seen lately, including those operated by the Police are pointing their gun at every vehicle.
This has happened to me where I have been warned that there is a trap and my speed was below 25mph in a 30 limit, and the Policeman has still pointed his laser at me.
VH said that?
This is not true most of the time. It is usual in Dorset that whilst driving toward a village, with a speed trap in it, whilst still in a NSL that drivers coming towards you flash you. At the time they flash you you are not commiting any offence.
Basically I do not believe that there are any instances where the Police, or their friends in the Partnerships, have formed a prior opinion of speed above the limit and the offending car reduces speed prior to being zapped. All the traps I have seen lately, including those operated by the Police are pointing their gun at every vehicle.
This has happened to me where I have been warned that there is a trap and my speed was below 25mph in a 30 limit, and the Policeman has still pointed his laser at me.
vonhosen said:So,
"...the headlamp flash is to prevent a detection of an offence that is already being committed."
VH said that?
How come vonhosen - the only offence your remark appears to apply to is speeding. Do motorists driving along have the means to determine whether approaching vehicles are breaking the speed limit?
The primary evidence of if speeding is taking place would be provided by the Police.
The intent of the accused would be ruled on by the court.
a single trained officer's opinion of whether someone is speeding is insufficient - it has to be corroborated by equipment or by another officer, but,
a single civilian's opinion of whether someone is speeding may be conclusive?
vonhosen said:
So we are back to my earlier point of moral equivalence. Is somebody warns a split second before a policeman has formed an opinion its legal, a split second later its illegal. Not a good way to operate the law at all.
The split second doesn't matter for the wilfulness of the obstruction. The intent is still there, it just results in there being insufficient evidence to prove it because there is not the required evidence of speeding.
In other words any warning to a person that there is a speed trap is illegal, its just that you cant do anything about it?
And you think that makes good law?
A warning given to anyone speeding, where the intention of the warning is to wilfully obstruct a police officer from gaining the required evidence, is illegal.
You can only be prosecuted for that offence where the Police have sufficient evidence of it. (This is not unusual, it is common with all offences that somebody may commit an offence, but prosecution not be posssible without sufficient evidence of it.)
Wilful obstruction isn't only used in these circumstances.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 17:38
No it isn't... That was the ruling of the HOL Anyway you do make an interesting point, specifically "where the intention of the warning is to wilfully obstruct a police officer from gaining the required evidence, is illegal." The intention of drivers flashing is to slow the other driver down so they don't get caught, not to obstruct the police. It's not oibstruction, it's assisting the police.
So what's your opinion on these pace car schemes? They are MOP's deliberately stopping other motorists speeding. The method is different, the intention is the same. However the pace car drivers are uninsured. Surely it's them the police should be going after?
) vonhosen said:
So we are back to my earlier point of moral equivalence. Is somebody warns a split second before a policeman has formed an opinion its legal, a split second later its illegal. Not a good way to operate the law at all.
The split second doesn't matter for the wilfulness of the obstruction. The intent is still there, it just results in there being insufficient evidence to prove it because there is not the required evidence of speeding.
In other words any warning to a person that there is a speed trap is illegal, its just that you cant do anything about it?
And you think that makes good law?
A warning given to anyone speeding, where the intention of the warning is to wilfully obstruct a police officer from gaining the required evidence, is illegal.
You can only be prosecuted for that offence where the Police have sufficient evidence of it. (This is not unusual, it is common with all offences that somebody may commit an offence, but prosecution not be posssible without sufficient evidence of it.)
Wilful obstruction isn't only used in these circumstances.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 17:38
How do you prove intention to "wilfully obstruct a police officer"? Are you able to read the mind of the flashing driver?
Peter Ward said:
How do you prove intention to "wilfully obstruct a police officer"? Are you able to read the mind of the flashing driver?
The court in looking at the full circumstances of the actions will make that determination.
In the case of Glendinning (the one we are talking about) it wasn't that they weren't satisfied on that score, the case only failed because there was no evidence of speeding or likelyhood to do so, not because of a lack of wilful intent.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 21:51
vonhosen said:No, flashing car headlights doesn't prevent detection, because a headlamp flash away from police will neither impair their vision nor affect their equipment. It cannot slow a car down either, photons exert very light pressure. The driver of the flashed car may interpret the flash as a warning and lift their foot a bit to slow down, or they might think wtf...and the motorist making a signal of some sort has no knowledge of the speed of another car and no knowledge of any detection. All this is so tenuous and impossible to link together, it's amazing it took the HoL to work it out. And after the ruling, police won't go there now imo. It would be interesting to hear from any PH BiB prepared to give a view on the future policing of speedtrap warnings - any view expressed not necessarily corresponding to that of their employer of course
the headlamp flash is to prevent a detection of an offence that is already being committed.
Regardless of what the 'law' says this whole nicking people for 'flashing' stinks and if the Police want to continue down this vindictive path, then they deserve all the contempt that they will undoubtedly and deservedly (IMO) receive.
May they remember this when they are asking for the publics 'assistance' in another case..........
May they remember this when they are asking for the publics 'assistance' in another case..........
BliarOut said:
Anyway you do make an interesting point, specifically "where the intention of the warning is to wilfully obstruct a police officer from gaining the required evidence, is illegal." The intention of drivers flashing is to slow the other driver down so they don't get caught, not to obstruct the police. It's not oibstruction, it's assisting the police.
Where the Police are specifically targeting speeding drivers that is the obstruction.
I the Glendinning case it wasn't a camera van, it was a trafpol car doing speed enforcement, so the there wouldn't have been a general warning about the car doing that enforcement. They were there to catch & deal with offenders, not prevention.
BliarOut said:
So what's your opinion on these pace car schemes? They are MOP's deliberately stopping other motorists speeding. The method is different, the intention is the same. However the pace car drivers are uninsured. Surely it's them the police should be going after?
I said about that one already on the earlier thread.
They make a potential problem for themselves by declaring themselves PACE cars, but there is of course nothing to stop them "making the committment" to stick to limits.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 22:28
catso said:
Regardless of what the 'law' says this whole nicking people for 'flashing' stinks and if the Police want to continue down this vindictive path, then they deserve all the contempt that they will undoubtedly and deservedly (IMO) receive.
May they remember this when they are asking for the publics 'assistance' in another case..........
You don't hurt the Police by not assisting, you hurt your fellow citizens.
It may be a fellow PHer who is a victim, but when you decide you won't assist, it is the fellow citizens cause who is damaged.
vonhosen said:So let me get this straight... The police WANT people speeding so they can catch them? Seems a trifle odd to me. I thought the idea was crime prevention, not entrapment
Anyway you do make an interesting point, specifically "where the intention of the warning is to wilfully obstruct a police officer from gaining the required evidence, is illegal." The intention of drivers flashing is to slow the other driver down so they don't get caught, not to obstruct the police. It's not oibstruction, it's assisting the police.
Where the Police are specifically targeting speeding drivers that is the obstruction.
I the Glendinning case it wasn't a camera van, it was a trafpol car doing speed enforcement, so the there wouldn't have been a general warning about the car doing that enforcement. They were there to catch & deal with offenders, not prevention.
BliarOut said:
So what's your opinion on these pace car schemes? They are MOP's deliberately stopping other motorists speeding. The method is different, the intention is the same. However the pace car drivers are uninsured. Surely it's them the police should be going after?
I said about that one already on the earlier thread.
They make a potential problem for themselves by declaring themselves PACE cars, but there is of course nothing to stop them "making the committment" to stick to limits.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 22:28
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff