Warning Drivers about Speed Traps !
Discussion
None of you are advancing your cause by using hypothetical scenarios to undermine the legality of this case.
If you try to dissuade a drunk driver from getting into his car or tell a shoplifter to put back stolen goods, you are NOT obstructing the police in the execution of their duty.
When the law speaks of 'execution of their duty' it means the task at hand not some broad concept of upholding the law.
Under section 51 of the Police Act 1964 it is an offence to resist or wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his/her duty. Wilful obstruction of a police officer means doing any act which makes it more difficult for the officer to carry out his/her lawful duty e.g. ignoring their instructions, stopping them doing something, dearresting someone or deliberately misleading them, or giving a false name and/or address. It has to be shown by the Prosecution that the police officer was acting in the execution of his/her duty. So if in the course of his duty a policeman is measuring the speed of oncoming traffic and you try and influence that traffic to reduce its speed, then you are guilty of an offence. It is as simple as that.
The offence must be wilful i.e. you must be aware of what the policeman is doing and you must do something that you intend to negate his effectiveness. If you don't understand this then maybe you shouldn't get involved in legal arguments.
If you try to dissuade a drunk driver from getting into his car or tell a shoplifter to put back stolen goods, you are NOT obstructing the police in the execution of their duty.
When the law speaks of 'execution of their duty' it means the task at hand not some broad concept of upholding the law.
Under section 51 of the Police Act 1964 it is an offence to resist or wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his/her duty. Wilful obstruction of a police officer means doing any act which makes it more difficult for the officer to carry out his/her lawful duty e.g. ignoring their instructions, stopping them doing something, dearresting someone or deliberately misleading them, or giving a false name and/or address. It has to be shown by the Prosecution that the police officer was acting in the execution of his/her duty. So if in the course of his duty a policeman is measuring the speed of oncoming traffic and you try and influence that traffic to reduce its speed, then you are guilty of an offence. It is as simple as that.
The offence must be wilful i.e. you must be aware of what the policeman is doing and you must do something that you intend to negate his effectiveness. If you don't understand this then maybe you shouldn't get involved in legal arguments.
By waving you are not affecting the policemans ability to carry out his lawful duty, you are affecting the speed of another vehicle and causing it to obey the law. The policeman is still measuring the speed whether you were to wave or not, ergo his ability to measure is completely unaffected.
Anyway, on a lighter note.
Along time ago, back in the 80's, a policeman did recite a story about the cubs/scouts on bob a job week who out up a sign before a speed trap advising of it with people contributing cash in a bucket.
Whether that is folk law/story to amuse or not I’ve no idea, but it was funny at the time
Along time ago, back in the 80's, a policeman did recite a story about the cubs/scouts on bob a job week who out up a sign before a speed trap advising of it with people contributing cash in a bucket.
Whether that is folk law/story to amuse or not I’ve no idea, but it was funny at the time
kenp said:
Under section 51 of the Police Act 1964 it is an offence to resist or wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his/her duty. Wilful obstruction of a police officer means doing any act which makes it more difficult for the officer to carry out his/her lawful duty .....
....So if in the course of his duty a policeman is measuring the speed of oncoming traffic and you try and influence that traffic to reduce its speed, then you are guilty of an offence. It is as simple as that.
If you stop him from measuring their speed you would be guilty. If however you in some way made it difficult for him to measure their speed then I'm sure you would be guilty.
kenp said:
The offence must be wilful i.e. you must be aware of what the policeman is doing and you must do something that you intend to negate his effectiveness. If you don't understand this then maybe you shouldn't get involved in legal arguments.
By slowing traffic you have in no way negated his effectiveness to measure a vehicles speed.
>> Edited by timsta on Friday 30th December 22:09
kenp said:
None of you are advancing your cause by using hypothetical scenarios to undermine the legality of this case.
If you try to dissuade a drunk driver from getting into his car or tell a shoplifter to put back stolen goods, you are NOT obstructing the police in the execution of their duty.
Whoooooooooaaaa! Hold on there a second! It kinda looks that way though, doesnt it?
The fact that the CPS wants to get what they see as "loophole" fixed speaks volumes about the intentions of the police doing these speed traps. The very name "traps" points to their REAL motivations does it not?
Now, if i stop a DD from driving and copper saw me doing it, i wonder if he'd be pissed off that i'd just stopped the guy from incriminating himself, or would he be pissed cos i'd stopped the copper from getting an easy nick???
Dont forget, the polices job is to uphold and enforce the law, not to take the strop cos a member of public prevents a crime being comitted in the first place!!!!! Does this taking the strop only apply to speeding or is it equally applicable to other "fine" driven enforcement actions?
kenp said:
Under section 51 of the Police Act 1964 it is an offence to resist or wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his/her duty. Wilful obstruction of a police officer means doing any act which makes it more difficult for the officer to carry out his/her lawful duty e.g. ignoring their instructions, stopping them doing something, dearresting someone or deliberately misleading them, or giving a false name and/or address. It has to be shown by the Prosecution that the police officer was acting in the execution of his/her duty. So if in the course of his duty a policeman is measuring the speed of oncoming traffic and you try and influence that traffic to reduce its speed, then you are guilty of an offence. It is as simple as that.
So the speed activated sign 200 yards up the road from the speed trap is obstructing a police officer then?
Its slowing the traffic.....its preventing a crime. Just like that guy in fact.
The only reason the CPS is whining is because theyre part of the scameraships revenue streams as well, the corrupt so and so's!
kenp said:
The offence must be wilful i.e. you must be aware of what the policeman is doing and you must do something that you intend to negate his effectiveness.
The guy flashing his lights or waving his hands or hanging his baboon butt outa the window isnt INTERFERING with the officers abilities or effectivenss, hes enhancing them! Unless you interpret the scenario in a slightly different way.
And that way is that the cops DO want to just catch people and they DONT want to stop people from comitting crimes so that theyre never out of a job!
Police are meant to PREVENT crimes and detect them and solve them not encourage them by sitting there waiting for it to happen!!!!
Thats the whole idea of "deterrence" isnt it??? Isnt it???
We often hear how the public are the eyes and ears of the police.....well thats funny?
On the one hand we're part of their effectiveness in dealing with crims, but if we try to prevent a crime (namely interfering with the ability to collect a revenue stream) by preventing drivers from speeding, then somehow we're the enemy and crims ourselves!
Can you beat that!
kenp said:
If you don't understand this then maybe you shouldn't get involved in legal arguments.
Thats a patronising tone...but hey we can rise above it.
>> Edited by deltafox on Friday 30th December 22:20
BliarOut said:
By waving you are not affecting the policemans ability to carry out his lawful duty, you are affecting the speed of another vehicle and causing it to obey the law. The policeman is still measuring the speed whether you were to wave or not, ergo his ability to measure is completely unaffected.
A policeman forms the opinion that a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit. He takes his laser in order to corroborate his opinion. You wave causing the vehicle to slow down. You have just obstructed a police officer in the course of corroborating his opinion (or executing his duty). Your example is also flawed in that in the present case the defendant's intention (admittedly) was for the car not to get caught speeding NOT to obey the law (there is a difference). You cannot retrospectively put words or thoughts into the defendants mouth/mind in order to create a scenario that suits your interpretation of the law.
lightstepper said:
KenP - Show me one fully tranined solicitor / legal bod that claims to understand every principle in every legal argument and statement, and I will show you a liar.
Its all down to interpretation
I don't think I have said that anywhere. I do expect a trained lawyer to understand every legal principle and dictum in his area of specialisation.
kenp said:
KenP - Show me one fully tranined solicitor / legal bod that claims to understand every principle in every legal argument and statement, and I will show you a liar.
Its all down to interpretation
I don't think I have said that anywhere. I do expect a trained lawyer to understand every legal principle and dictum in his area of specialisation.
Fair comment
deltafox said:
None of you are advancing your cause by using hypothetical scenarios to undermine the legality of this case.
If you try to dissuade a drunk driver from getting into his car or tell a shoplifter to put back stolen goods, you are NOT obstructing the police in the execution of their duty.
Whoooooooooaaaa! Hold on there a second! It kinda looks that way though, doesnt it?
The fact that the CPS wants to get what they see as "loophole" fixed speaks volumes about the intentions of the police doing these speed traps. The very name "traps" points to their REAL motivations does it not?
Now, if i stop a DD from driving and copper saw me doing it, i wonder if he'd be pissed off that i'd just stopped the guy from incriminating himself, or would he be pissed cos i'd stopped the copper from getting an easy nick???
Dont forget, the polices job is to uphold and enforce the law, not to take the strop cos a member of public prevents a crime being comitted in the first place!!!!! Does this taking the strop only apply to speeding or is it equally applicable to other "fine" driven enforcement actions?
As I said above 'obstruction in the course of duty' applies only to the task in hand. If you disuade your son at home from robbing a bank, then it could hardly be an obstruction.
I used the word 'speed trap' as shorthand. It doesn't add or detract from the issue.
You are missing the whole point of the case. The defendant by his own admission wanted to prevent the policeman from catching any drivers. He was not motivated by a wish to get drivers to obey the speed limit. Big difference. So big in fact that one is an offence and one isn't.
[quote=deltafox
So the speed activated sign 200 yards up the road from the speed trap is obstructing a police officer then?
Its slowing the traffic.....its preventing a crime. Just like that guy in fact.
The only reason the CPS is whining is because theyre part of the scameraships revenue streams as well, the corrupt so and so's!
[/quote]
Wilful is the important word. The sign is NOT wilfully trying to obstruct the policeman in the execution of his duty, hence no possible offence.
kenp said:
Under section 51 of the Police Act 1964 it is an offence to resist or wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his/her duty. Wilful obstruction of a police officer means doing any act which makes it more difficult for the officer to carry out his/her lawful duty e.g. ignoring their instructions, stopping them doing something, dearresting someone or deliberately misleading them, or giving a false name and/or address. It has to be shown by the Prosecution that the police officer was acting in the execution of his/her duty. So if in the course of his duty a policeman is measuring the speed of oncoming traffic and you try and influence that traffic to reduce its speed, then you are guilty of an offence. It is as simple as that.
So the speed activated sign 200 yards up the road from the speed trap is obstructing a police officer then?
Its slowing the traffic.....its preventing a crime. Just like that guy in fact.
The only reason the CPS is whining is because theyre part of the scameraships revenue streams as well, the corrupt so and so's!
[/quote]
Wilful is the important word. The sign is NOT wilfully trying to obstruct the policeman in the execution of his duty, hence no possible offence.
kenp said:
[quote=rs1952
...... as it should be seen as an attempt by a member of the public to prevent a crime.
You are missing the point, he signalled BECAUSE of the speed trap, NOT because he thought the driver was speeding. By his own admission he was trying to prevent a possible speeder from being caught.
This was not a man who set himself up as a one man police force, flashing any oncoming traffic that he thought was speeding[/quote]
So, lets look at this a little more closely.
(incidentally, for any who don't know, "mens rea" can be simplisticly interpreted as "a guilty mind", "actus rea" as a "guilty act".
Looking at Kenp's analogy of the pickpocket for a moment, if you witness somebody trying to pick somebody else's pocket, then, according to the logic being employed by kenp, it is only permissable to try to stop them doing it you don't know that there is a BiB just around the corner who, had you not attempted to prevent the crime, would have been able to nick the pickpocket. If you do happen to know that Plod is likely to catch the scroat anyway, then you are committing an offence.
?????
Somehow, I don't think that this argument stands up to logical scrutiny.
I only wish I had not given up studying for the legal profession - I could have been one of those Barristers making a fortune out of this one!!
[quote=deltafox
The guy flashing his lights or waving his hands or hanging his baboon butt outa the window isnt INTERFERING with the officers abilities or effectivenss, hes enhancing them! Unless you interpret the scenario in a slightly different way.
And that way is that the cops DO want to just catch people and they DONT want to stop people from comitting crimes so that theyre never out of a job!
Police are meant to PREVENT crimes and detect them and solve them not encourage them by sitting there waiting for it to happen!!!!
Thats the whole idea of "deterrence" isnt it??? Isnt it???
We often hear how the public are the eyes and ears of the police.....well thats funny?
On the one hand we're part of their effectiveness in dealing with crims, but if we try to prevent a crime (namely interfering with the ability to collect a revenue stream) by preventing drivers from speeding, then somehow we're the enemy and crims ourselves!
Can you beat that!
[/quote]
See the comments above.
kenp said:
The offence must be wilful i.e. you must be aware of what the policeman is doing and you must do something that you intend to negate his effectiveness.
The guy flashing his lights or waving his hands or hanging his baboon butt outa the window isnt INTERFERING with the officers abilities or effectivenss, hes enhancing them! Unless you interpret the scenario in a slightly different way.
And that way is that the cops DO want to just catch people and they DONT want to stop people from comitting crimes so that theyre never out of a job!
Police are meant to PREVENT crimes and detect them and solve them not encourage them by sitting there waiting for it to happen!!!!
Thats the whole idea of "deterrence" isnt it??? Isnt it???
We often hear how the public are the eyes and ears of the police.....well thats funny?
On the one hand we're part of their effectiveness in dealing with crims, but if we try to prevent a crime (namely interfering with the ability to collect a revenue stream) by preventing drivers from speeding, then somehow we're the enemy and crims ourselves!
Can you beat that!
[/quote]
See the comments above.
kenp said:
By waving you are not affecting the policemans ability to carry out his lawful duty, you are affecting the speed of another vehicle and causing it to obey the law. The policeman is still measuring the speed whether you were to wave or not, ergo his ability to measure is completely unaffected.
A policeman forms the opinion that a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit. He takes his laser in order to corroborate his opinion. You wave causing the vehicle to slow down. You have just obstructed a police officer in the course of corroborating his opinion (or executing his duty). Your example is also flawed in that in the present case the defendant's intention (admittedly) was for the car not to get caught speeding NOT to obey the law (there is a difference). You cannot retrospectively put words or thoughts into the defendants mouth/mind in order to create a scenario that suits your interpretation of the law.
Sorry, but my example is far from flawed. I have put no words into anyones mouth, nor inferred it in my post. Slowing the other vehicle down by waving (if it actually WAS speeding anyway, there's no proof) does not interfere with the officer performing a time/distance calculation with an elaborate laser measure and stopwatch. It ensures an offence is not being committed.
Quick question. How could the officer be estimating the speed of oncoming vehicles in relation to the prevaling limit and at the same time be watching another motorist waving?
What if a driver was done for this when they were merely warning another driver of their presence, as dictated by the highway code? Surely this dictates a scarey precident for the future where people are being needlessly dragged into court for the CPS's warped interpretation of the highway code?
I think its fair to say for this to stick then 'intent' would have to be proved, only the very stupid would admit the flash/wave was a warning 
.
Not so many years ago, before TB and the stazi party got in, the burden was for the police/cps to prove guilt. We seem to have stumbled in our sleep into eastern europe 30 years ago, very sad indeed
.
. Not so many years ago, before TB and the stazi party got in, the burden was for the police/cps to prove guilt. We seem to have stumbled in our sleep into eastern europe 30 years ago, very sad indeed
.So, what we are basically saying is that this is legal to do as long as your intention is to warn other motorists that in your opinion they are driving too fast as oppose to the speed trap?
Seems like a good defence. It would be very difficult to disprove otherwise if you get your story straight from the start. The second point is that as long as you do this before the police could get a visual opinion of speed then surely then you are not obstructin them in any way?
I believe the outcome of this case was that the case fell apart because the CPS could not prove that the defendant was obstructive as there was no proof that there was a crime committed, as whether they caught people speeding or not, in both cases it proves the case for the defence.
Seems like a good defence. It would be very difficult to disprove otherwise if you get your story straight from the start. The second point is that as long as you do this before the police could get a visual opinion of speed then surely then you are not obstructin them in any way?
I believe the outcome of this case was that the case fell apart because the CPS could not prove that the defendant was obstructive as there was no proof that there was a crime committed, as whether they caught people speeding or not, in both cases it proves the case for the defence.
[quote=rs1952
So, lets look at this a little more closely.
(incidentally, for any who don't know, "mens rea" can be simplisticly interpreted as "a guilty mind", "actus rea" as a "guilty act".
Looking at Kenp's analogy of the pickpocket for a moment, if you witness somebody trying to pick somebody else's pocket, then, according to the logic being employed by kenp, it is only permissable to try to stop them doing it you don't know that there is a BiB just around the corner who, had you not attempted to prevent the crime, would have been able to nick the pickpocket. If you do happen to know that Plod is likely to catch the scroat anyway, then you are committing an offence.
?????
Somehow, I don't think that this argument stands up to logical scrutiny.
I only wish I had not given up studying for the legal profession - I could have been one of those Barristers making a fortune out of this one!![/quote]
This is not my logic, but that of the House of Lords.
First of all, obstruction has to be wilful and deal with an execution of duty ie the task at hand not some vague concept of upholding the law in general. If you try to stop this ficticious pickpocket, you are NOT obstructing a policeman in the execution of his duty, because
a) your intention is not to obstruct, therefore not wilful,
b) your act is too remote from the policeman's execution of his duty. He is not even aware of the ongoing offence,
c) you would not have actually prevented the crime, since the attempt was complete.
d) it is questionable whether under any circumstances your act would amount to an obstruction.
It is actus reus (nominative adjective).
I think you did the right thing giving up your studies for the legal profession.
So, lets look at this a little more closely.
(incidentally, for any who don't know, "mens rea" can be simplisticly interpreted as "a guilty mind", "actus rea" as a "guilty act".
Looking at Kenp's analogy of the pickpocket for a moment, if you witness somebody trying to pick somebody else's pocket, then, according to the logic being employed by kenp, it is only permissable to try to stop them doing it you don't know that there is a BiB just around the corner who, had you not attempted to prevent the crime, would have been able to nick the pickpocket. If you do happen to know that Plod is likely to catch the scroat anyway, then you are committing an offence.
?????
Somehow, I don't think that this argument stands up to logical scrutiny.
I only wish I had not given up studying for the legal profession - I could have been one of those Barristers making a fortune out of this one!![/quote]
This is not my logic, but that of the House of Lords.
First of all, obstruction has to be wilful and deal with an execution of duty ie the task at hand not some vague concept of upholding the law in general. If you try to stop this ficticious pickpocket, you are NOT obstructing a policeman in the execution of his duty, because
a) your intention is not to obstruct, therefore not wilful,
b) your act is too remote from the policeman's execution of his duty. He is not even aware of the ongoing offence,
c) you would not have actually prevented the crime, since the attempt was complete.
d) it is questionable whether under any circumstances your act would amount to an obstruction.
It is actus reus (nominative adjective).
I think you did the right thing giving up your studies for the legal profession.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff