Warning Drivers about Speed Traps !
Discussion
kenp said:On this you are correct. This chap's defence was not at all well thought out. Even with the admission that he was warning other drivers of the presence of the police, his argument should have been that this did not constitute an obstruction but a warning to behave lawfully. Causing an offence ot cease to be committed with the result that a policeman has nobody to catch is not the same as inhibiting a policeman from catching somebody who is in the process of committing an offence.
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?
Each case hinges on its own facts. In the present case the defendant admitted that he wanted to warn oncoming traffic of the police. With his admission he had done most of the work for the prosecution. If a defendant had said that he was merely waving to a friend in greeting or even to a pedestrian then the prosecution would have had a major problem of proving their case.
You do yourself no favours with your patronising tone. You make sensible points on some other threads. Why spoil it by being intemperate on a thread like this?
>> Edited by Zod on Saturday 31st December 01:27
kenp said:
You see a man outside of a village post office, armed with a pickaxe handle, pull a balaclava over his face.
You shout across the road, "Don't go in there! The place is crawling with armed police."
From a legal stand point the two scenarios are identical, unless you could show the difference.
Is 'Ouzi' a greek drink? I ask because I don't recall introducing it into the argument.
One is a person helping another about to be robbed via a speed trap, the other is a person helping another about to rob a post office.
One is morally decent to most of us, the other isn't.
I know you said "from a legal standpoint" but does this mean we dispense with our morals and if so is that for the greater good?
Can I ask you kenp, legalities aside, would you personally ever indicate to another motorist that they're approaching a speed trap?
>> Edited by deeps on Saturday 31st December 02:02
kenp said:I think that "Ouzi" means "pickaxe handle" in one of the 750 languages and dialects of Papua New Guinea. Informative forum this, what? - Streaky
You see a man outside of a village post office, armed with a pickaxe handle, pull a balaclava over his face.
You shout across the road, "Don't go in there! The place is crawling with armed police."
From a legal stand point the two scenarios are identical, unless you could show the difference.
Quotes reconstructed to shorten this aspect of the thread - S
kenp said:
The policeman watches a vehicle approaching him and within a couple of degrees of his centre of vision he sees a lorry retreating with the lorry driver waving wildly. Surely within everybodies capability to reach a conclusion regarding the lorry driver.
Assumptions assumptions assumptions.
The photo I've seen shows the lorry driver APPROACHING the scamps and giving the slowing down signal out of his window.
as in www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign022.htm
The Times said:
Mr Glendinning, of Yeovil in Somerset, was arrested last year and accused of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. He denied that he was trying to warn other motorists of the speed camera on the A303 at Stoke Trister near Yeovil. Mr Glendinning said that his lorry had mechanical failures and he was warning other drivers that he was slowing to pull into a lay-by.
We don't know and never will what was actually in his mind.
Stop making stuff up to support your case.
kenp said:They are different - speeding is a strict liability offence where only the act itself is required to convict. Any inchoate or normal criminal offences require both the actus reus and mens rea.
From a legal stand point the two scenarios are identical, unless you could show the difference.
Argument by analogy doesn't work here.
[quote=deeps
I know you said "from a legal standpoint" but does this mean we dispense with our morals and if so is that for the greater good?
Can I ask you kenp, legalities aside, would you personally ever indicate to another motorist that they're approaching a speed trap?
quote]
I drive, which means that I frequently exceed the speed limit. I benefit from other drivers' warnings and I return the favour where ever I can. I realise that I am breaking the law when speeding or warning other drivers, but in neither instance do I try to claim that my acts are lawful simply because I disapprove of the law and its implementation.
I know you said "from a legal standpoint" but does this mean we dispense with our morals and if so is that for the greater good?
Can I ask you kenp, legalities aside, would you personally ever indicate to another motorist that they're approaching a speed trap?
quote]
I drive, which means that I frequently exceed the speed limit. I benefit from other drivers' warnings and I return the favour where ever I can. I realise that I am breaking the law when speeding or warning other drivers, but in neither instance do I try to claim that my acts are lawful simply because I disapprove of the law and its implementation.
SJobson said:
From a legal stand point the two scenarios are identical, unless you could show the difference.
Argument by analogy doesn't work here.
Have to disagree with you. We are comparing wilful obstruction with another offence, not speeding. Obstruction requires both mens and actus.
Flat in Fifth said:
The policeman watches a vehicle approaching him and within a couple of degrees of his centre of vision he sees a lorry retreating with the lorry driver waving wildly. Surely within everybodies capability to reach a conclusion regarding the lorry driver.
Assumptions assumptions assumptions.
The photo I've seen shows the lorry driver APPROACHING the scamps and giving the slowing down signal out of his window.
as in www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign022.htm
The Times said:
Mr Glendinning, of Yeovil in Somerset, was arrested last year and accused of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. He denied that he was trying to warn other motorists of the speed camera on the A303 at Stoke Trister near Yeovil. Mr Glendinning said that his lorry had mechanical failures and he was warning other drivers that he was slowing to pull into a lay-by.
We don't know and never will what was actually in his mind.
Stop making stuff up to support your case.
I was responding to a hypothetical question:
"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?"
I was not trying to support my argument by making up 'stuff', I was responding to a wider question that somebody felt relevant
kenp said:
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).
Isn't that the nub of the problem. For it to be obstruction the waving has to occur between the BiB forming opinion and then attempting to corrobarate his opinion. If the waving occurs after the measurement then clearly no obstruction as it is too late. If before an opinion is formed then I would argue that again the BiB is not obstructed he can still form opinion and validate without interference.
The case was not guilty as the CPS could not show the correct sequence of events. The CPS want to challenge as this places a tight restriction on them and around effectively when the BiB is excercising his duty eg if there are no cars at a given moment in time and the BiB is sitting in his van with his laser gun - is he actively performing speed checks at that moment? As the case currently stands the answer is no, I suspect, the CPS want a ruling that says he is regardless of whether he is actually forming opinion / validating at that moment in time.
kenp said:
The policeman watches a vehicle approaching him and within a couple of degrees of his centre of vision he sees a lorry retreating with the lorry driver waving wildly. Surely within everybodies capability to reach a conclusion regarding the lorry driver.
Assumptions assumptions assumptions.
The photo I've seen shows the lorry driver APPROACHING the scamps and giving the slowing down signal out of his window.
as in www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign022.htmThe Times said:
Mr Glendinning, of Yeovil in Somerset, was arrested last year and accused of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. He denied that he was trying to warn other motorists of the speed camera on the A303 at Stoke Trister near Yeovil. Mr Glendinning said that his lorry had mechanical failures and he was warning other drivers that he was slowing to pull into a lay-by.
We don't know and never will what was actually in his mind.
Stop making stuff up to support your case.
I was responding to a hypothetical question:
"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?"
I was not trying to support my argument by making up 'stuff', I was responding to a wider question that somebody felt relevant
But in so doing introduced a significantly erroneous statement.
But then just in this thread so far we have had.....
kenp on numerous occasions said:
The defendant admitted......
Apart from his admission as to mens rea......
By his own admission
The defendant by his own admission wanted to prevent the policeman from catching any drivers.
In the present case the defendant admitted that he wanted to warn oncoming traffic of the police.....
Just because it keeps being said doesn't mean that it is correct and factual.
kenp said:
None of you are advancing your cause by using hypothetical scenarios
and
kenp said:
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.
I refer to Times report above, but then it could be sloppy reporting for The Times to quote him as follows
Mr Glendinning said:
He denied that he was trying to warn other motorists of the speed camera on the A303
Even if he was trying to warn motorists, and The Times quote is noted, the reaction of the police and the authorities should have been to say 'thank you'. If exceeding the speed limit is dangerous then this gentleman was trying to make the roads safer.
Of course we all know that this is total b0ll0x, that speed limits are f
k all to do with safety, and enforcement is all about revenue and harrassing motorists. Drivers are viewed as mobile tax receipts, safety pariahs and an environmental nuisance and therefore fair game for just about any restriction or financial penalty. Each element of the basis for this has precisely zero justification. We're in an ideological war with a government that is envious of intelligence, wealth, independence of thought, and independence of action (mobility). This government, in the most literal pythonesque sense, is a total waste of space, and by allowing their role to become politicised, senior police officers and the quasi-legal members of 'partnerships' deserve the same opprobrium.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 31st December 12:56
Of course we all know that this is total b0ll0x, that speed limits are f
k all to do with safety, and enforcement is all about revenue and harrassing motorists. Drivers are viewed as mobile tax receipts, safety pariahs and an environmental nuisance and therefore fair game for just about any restriction or financial penalty. Each element of the basis for this has precisely zero justification. We're in an ideological war with a government that is envious of intelligence, wealth, independence of thought, and independence of action (mobility). This government, in the most literal pythonesque sense, is a total waste of space, and by allowing their role to become politicised, senior police officers and the quasi-legal members of 'partnerships' deserve the same opprobrium. >> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 31st December 12:56
I think that kenp it putting in an admiral job as an advocate here, perhaps one he is paid for during office hours!
That said however, exact legal definitions of guilt aside, it is worth pointing out that in cases like this although 'technical' right or wrong may exist, in practice 'right or wrong' is completely up to the choice of the magistrates on the day, which in turn is based on the relative qualities of the two sides cases.
If anyone wishes to argue against this you are also advocating that Nick Freemans traffic clients *really are* innocent of the charge 95% of the time...
I feel that the most pertinent questions here are not what should happen in a perfect court scenario, as that does not exist, but one which is most likely to happen in real life.
I have argued in court that in my case (and probably many others) the prior opinion of the vehiles speed before a reading is taken to corroborate, is something which in reality does not always happen. I would defy anyone to look at a car at say 1000 metres away with the naked eye and bet their house on the fact that it is doing 85 not 70. Similarly at an albeit closer distance the difference between 36 and 30. In my experience, this prior opionion is only manifest as a pre-written aspect of the statement in order to gain a conviction as oppose to something which has a real value.
Also in my experience, the police officer can get away with just saying that he 'had a hunch' that my car was speeding from half a mile away without having to qualify how he could see or indeed assess the speed. I would have thought the defendant in these cases could rely on the fact that he could say that the reason he was flashing his lights or hand signalling because he knew someone in another car or wanted to warn them that they had their lights on etc.
In reality, if someone was to get their story straight from the start, at would be very difficult to be convited of obstruction.
That said however, exact legal definitions of guilt aside, it is worth pointing out that in cases like this although 'technical' right or wrong may exist, in practice 'right or wrong' is completely up to the choice of the magistrates on the day, which in turn is based on the relative qualities of the two sides cases.
If anyone wishes to argue against this you are also advocating that Nick Freemans traffic clients *really are* innocent of the charge 95% of the time...
I feel that the most pertinent questions here are not what should happen in a perfect court scenario, as that does not exist, but one which is most likely to happen in real life.
I have argued in court that in my case (and probably many others) the prior opinion of the vehiles speed before a reading is taken to corroborate, is something which in reality does not always happen. I would defy anyone to look at a car at say 1000 metres away with the naked eye and bet their house on the fact that it is doing 85 not 70. Similarly at an albeit closer distance the difference between 36 and 30. In my experience, this prior opionion is only manifest as a pre-written aspect of the statement in order to gain a conviction as oppose to something which has a real value.
Also in my experience, the police officer can get away with just saying that he 'had a hunch' that my car was speeding from half a mile away without having to qualify how he could see or indeed assess the speed. I would have thought the defendant in these cases could rely on the fact that he could say that the reason he was flashing his lights or hand signalling because he knew someone in another car or wanted to warn them that they had their lights on etc.
In reality, if someone was to get their story straight from the start, at would be very difficult to be convited of obstruction.
kenp said:Ken, I am quoting from an earlier post of yours in response to your reply to me. Your point (c) proves the difference between speeding as a strict liability offence and burglary (or whatever crime this hypothetical chap with a pickaxe handle intends to commit). If someone is warned of a speed trap up ahead and goes through it within the speed limit, no offence is committed by that driver at all (whether or not they were speeding previously - since it is only the speed measured at the trap which is relevant). Therefore, the person who has issued the warning has not wilfully obstructed a police officer, since he has not interfered directly with measurement at the trap, nor has any offence been committed.
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).
The placement of a sign at the beginning of roadworks saying 'Police Speed Check Area' could similarly be considered wilful - whoever places it there does so deliberately and the only purpose of such a sign is to warn of a speed check.
Proposing this legislation is clearly a nonsense and practically unenforceable for the reasons everyone has already said. Do you believe it is fair and workable?
The problem is that many non-lawyers confuse right/wrong with legality.
Lord Justice Ormrod once said in a CoA case "this is a court of law, not a court of justice"(maybe he hadn't noticed the inscription over the door 'Royal Courts of Justice').
The other problem is that lawmakers pitch legislation at the lowest common denominator. Low speed limits are set to the level of poorly skilled drivers in badly designed cars.
I get the impression that the bulk of subscribers to this forum consider themselves as above average drivers and that the nanny state is not recognising their ability and curtailing some perceived freedom. I also suspect that the same people are highly critical of 18 year old Nova drivers who are trying to impress spotty Sharon. The problem is that the law in its application is too crude an arbiter of different ability and it is impossible to differentiate, so everybody is treated at threshold level ie as an idiot.
It is worth remembering that a few years ago, in response to an AA survey, more than 80% of drivers considered themselves to be of above average driving ability. Now that is simply impossible, it just demonstrates that the vast majority of drivers have unwarranted high opinion of their skill behind the wheel.
Lord Justice Ormrod once said in a CoA case "this is a court of law, not a court of justice"(maybe he hadn't noticed the inscription over the door 'Royal Courts of Justice').
The other problem is that lawmakers pitch legislation at the lowest common denominator. Low speed limits are set to the level of poorly skilled drivers in badly designed cars.
I get the impression that the bulk of subscribers to this forum consider themselves as above average drivers and that the nanny state is not recognising their ability and curtailing some perceived freedom. I also suspect that the same people are highly critical of 18 year old Nova drivers who are trying to impress spotty Sharon. The problem is that the law in its application is too crude an arbiter of different ability and it is impossible to differentiate, so everybody is treated at threshold level ie as an idiot.
It is worth remembering that a few years ago, in response to an AA survey, more than 80% of drivers considered themselves to be of above average driving ability. Now that is simply impossible, it just demonstrates that the vast majority of drivers have unwarranted high opinion of their skill behind the wheel.
justinp1 said:
Also in my experience, the police officer can get away with just saying that he 'had a hunch' that my car was speeding from half a mile away without having to qualify how he could see or indeed assess the speed.
In my experience, most drivers exceed the speed limit most of the time when it is safe to do so. So if the police officer forms the opinion that it is obviously safe to exceed the speed limit in that particular situation, he could reasonably expect that most approaching drivers will be doing so. So his 'prior opinion' could just be that he sees the car.
I have no problem with the morality of warning people about hidden speed traps because I condone people who exceed the speed limit safely. But as far as the legality is concerned, I guess it is equivalent to seeing a burglar approaching a house and whispering "not now mate, somebody's watching you" to warn them off. I'm not preventing a crime, I'm just trying to help them avoid getting caught. Is that illegal? It probably should be.
SJobson said:
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).
The placement of a sign at the beginning of roadworks saying 'Police Speed Check Area' could similarly be considered wilful - whoever places it there does so deliberately and the only purpose of such a sign is to warn of a speed check.
Proposing this legislation is clearly a nonsense and practically unenforceable for the reasons everyone has already said. Do you believe it is fair and workable?
We are coming full circle here. The fact whether the 'warned' driver was speeding is wholly irrelevant. We are dealing with an attempt at an offence. Attempting to commit a substantive offence is an offence in its own right.
It is an attempt to obstruct a policeman in the execution of his duty. As I have pointed out before, the HoL has held in the past that a person can be found guilty of attempting the impossible (stealing from an empty pocket). This means that you could be guilty of the attempted obbstruction even if all traffic was stationary.
Nothing to do with strict liability, the mens rea is to obstruct a policeman.
The legal placement of a sign at the beginning of roadworks saying 'Police Speed Check Area' is no more an obstruction than a speed limit sign. Mens rea has a wider meaning which is often interpreted as 'malice aforethought' ie against the law. The sign is placed 'within the law', a hand drawn sign is 'outside of the law'. One is legal one is illegal. If you hang your wife, you are a murderer. If you hang your wife in your capacity as a hangman you are in the clear (please no posts that we don't have the death penalty anymore).
If a policeman speeds in an official capacity, then he is exempt from the consequences of his act, if he does it in his spare time, then he is not.
kenp said:An equal problem is that the authorities confuse legality with safety and then continue with self-deception for the purpose of revenue raising. There is no basis for the totalitarian view that all laws are just, even though they are by definition 'legal'. There is no basis for law-abiding men and women who uphold the principles of natural justice to support or obey an unjust law, since such legislation runs counter to it. Parliament and the police are there as our servants but they naturally forget this while drunk on power and self-belief. It's the duty of every decent law-abiding person to obstruct, derail, and ultimately remove unjust laws. This does not involve being a good or bad driver or having an easily impressed girlfriend, it's simply a matter of judgement. Obsequious levels of adherence to claptrap dressed as justice merely represents qualification for a salaried minion's post in a totalitarian state.
The problem is that many non-lawyers confuse right/wrong with legality.
turbobloke said:
The problem is that many non-lawyers confuse right/wrong with legality.
My comment was not intended as a jurisprudential observation, but was intended for the topic under discussion.
I believe I understand what you are saying, but it is based on a series of misconceptions.
"There is no basis for the totalitarian view that all laws are just"- totalitarian regimes couldn't give a fig whether their laws are just, their motto is might is right. It is libertarian regimes that claim that their laws are for the greater good.
"There is no basis for law-abiding men and women who uphold the principles of natural justice to support or obey an unjust law"- natural justice, fairness, just these are just wooly concepts. What is natural justice? Nature is cruel and unfair, might always wins against right in nature. The concept of natural justice only evolved in the 1930's and has evolved into a limited number of areas and deals largely with procedure (right to a hearing, absence of male fide, reasonableness etc). One of the things that sets the average Briton aside from others is his firm belief in fairness. Fairness is a mindset or set of rules we have called our own which resides separate of the law and is linked to morality and equality.
Our criminal laws evolved in order to maintain a status quo, so that man would not kill his neighbour and that society had a measure of security and peace. It is a civil contract which basically says, you will agree not to kill your neighbour and in return will will ensure that your neighbour doesn't kill you. We will enforce this contract by sanctions called punishment, in case you or you neighbour reneges on the contract.
History has shown that new contracts(laws) which were unpopular were ignored and eventually repealed. Probably one of the better examples, was that until the 1860's a theft of property valued at £5 or more carried the death penalty.
Jurries had to decide a) whether the defendant had comitted the offence and b) the value of the property stolen.
The public at large felt that this law was oppressive, and after several juries found that a stolen £5 note was worth £4 and nineteen shillings, the government relented and changed the law.
Governments are elected and must respond to the public mood. You can make a difference, maybe not alone but if enough people shake their fists then there will be change. Why do you thing the opposition is talking about introducing a 80mph motorway limit. Fairness? Justice? Natural justice? No. They want to be elected.
turbobloke said:
The problem is that many non-lawyers confuse right/wrong with legality.
Pretty much covers my feelings on this subject and the vast majority of new laws being imposed by our 'betters' at present 
. 
As a 'poles apart' idea to your statement above kenp; Wasn't there a line of defence used by some Nazi's not so long ago. Something along the lines of 'we were only following orders' perfectly legal in their little world, you'd have to agree, but certainly not right. I don't think you need to be lawyer to work that one out matey, just human. HarryW said:
The problem is that many non-lawyers confuse right/wrong with legality.
Sorry don't understand your point. I don't recall falling back on the 'Eichmann defence' nor can I detect any parallel.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff