Wednesday 10th May 2006

Speed trap warnings are legal

Ruling follows pursuit through courts

---

Speed trap

It would appear that, in some circumstances, it's OK to warn oncoming motorists of a speed trap ahead, according to a recent legal ruling.

It follows the conviction of lorry driver Charles Glendinning last year by magistrates in Somerset of wilful obstruction. The police argued that he issued waved warnings to other road users about a speed trap on the A303 at Tinkers Hill, Stoke Trister.

The case went to Taunton Crown Court where the conviction was overturned, but the Department for Public Prosecutions (DPP) in February took the case to the High Court, which also backed Glendinning. Once again it was referred up the chain of command and, once again, the judges ruled in the lorry driver's favour. What's more, the judges, led by former Lord Chief Justice Lord Bingham, refused the DPP permission to appeal.

When the High Court was considering the matter, the judge said there was no evidence that any of the motorists whom Glendinning has warned were either breaking the speed limit or were about to do so. He said that some people might argue the police should appreciate the efforts of others to prevent speeding.

^{Image courtesy www.speedcam.co.uk}

[TUS 373]

Waste of time and public money.

[apache]

www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=267642

[Nano2nd]

i personaly think this is a good thing, means we can warn oncomers to camera vans without repercussions from the plod... the high court said it was fine orificer

[westie ian]

Excellent, makes a change for some sense to come out of the legal system in favour of 'us'.

[MarkoTVR]

[Nelson Muntz]
They said it's not illegal.......HAW HAW!
[/Nelson Muntz]

[supermono]

What more evidence do we need that these imbeciles are operating an extortion racket!

Imagine taking the bloke all the way to the high court for helping them in their stated aim of making people drive more slowly.

This really should have a higher profile in the news:
a)proof they're making money
b)proof they're not improving road safety
c)bears shit in the woods.

SM

[Arquestian]

Communists!

[Andrew D]

Bet the lorry driver made a pretty penny out of it in costs and damages, good for him!

It's a pitty more people don't stick up for their rights instead of rolling over.

[wab172uk]

POLICE : If we can't confict you first time, we'll try and try again, and again.

All the money it has cost us, the tax payer, for what? So plod can collect (or try to) a £60 fine.

[tvrolet]

Andrew D said:

Bet the lorry driver made a pretty penny out of it in costs and damages, good for him! .

Nope, that's not the way the law works in the UK I'm afraid to say. Unless there's personal injury involved there will be nothing repaid other than tangible losses. So, if he was on legal aid he probably broke even at best in terms of lost income etc. If he was paying for his own lawers then his costs repaid will be based on a standard scale, so if his actual costs in fighting the case were, say £10K, then he'd be lucky to get £7.5k in costs back.

You only hear of extraordinary settlements in the US, or where there's death or injury...or you make a bob or two selling your story to the press or whatever. In this instance I'd be very very surprised if the bloke wasn't significantly out of pocket despite his win. That's how it works I'm afraid.

[Fire99]

It does appear that a certain well informed gent on the other thread was basically trying to deter people from warning others of speed traps.

True criminals are usually one step ahead of this nonsense. Its the generally law abiding folk who sadly aren't perfect that suffer.

Good result for the lorry driver though.

[ATG]

wab172uk said:

POLICE : If we can't confict you first time, we'll try and try again, and again. All the money it has cost us, the tax payer, for what? So plod can collect (or try to) a £60 fine.

The CPS bring prosecutions, not the Police

[mattvenn]

There must be some way of turning this around so the prosecution don't just waste our money like this. Perhaps they should hold the person who wishes to proceed with the prosecution responsible for court/resource costs and they should face an inquiry. Even better, give them the sack. If I were to waste my companies money on fictitious projects I'm sure I'd be fired!

This really does piss me off.

[Andrew D]

tvrolet said:

Unless there's personal injury involved there will be nothing repaid other than tangible losses.

I'm afraid that that isn't strictly true. As he was seemingly convicted by the magistrates court in the first instance, prior to a subsequent successful appeal, and as Obstruction of a Police Officer is a criminal offence, I was speculating whether he was eligible for compensation on the grounds of a miscarriage of justice, under the Criminal Justice Act.

It seems likely that after such a drawn out and ultimately unsuccessful prosecution, he would be eligible for a descretionary compensation payment by the court (which were recently curtailed by Shrek, sorry, Charles Clarke).

[Master]

I'm sure the name of the 'accused' is a matter of public record... What about the NAME OF THE INDIVIDUAL who was responsible for taking the case to Court... Oh and then saying to himself.. "those judges were wrong - I'm going to spend whatever it takes to get a conviction for this heinous crime" ... Oh, and of course, then saying to himself AGAIN "those judges were wrong - I'm going to spend whatever it takes to get a conviction for this heinous crime". Who pays? We pays!

[Boosted LS1]

The important thing is not to admit that you were warning people to slow down. Don't admit it in case the police say those motorists were already speeding. In otherwords, just say you had cramp in your arm or thought you saw your aunty or something else. that's if you ever get reported.

Boosted.

[charliegwte]

Digressing only a bit, what is the current status of the GPS based speed trap / camera warning service(s) in UK ?

Have they been challenged by the authorities ?

Might they benefit from the outcome of this case ?

[vonhosen]

charliegwte said:

Digressing only a bit, what is the current status of the GPS based speed trap / camera warning service(s) in UK ? Have they been challenged by the authorities ? Might they benefit from the outcome of this case ?

GPS based devices aren't under threat.
Laser detector/jammers should become illegal in the near future.

[antispeed]

vonhosen said:

charliegwte said: Digressing only a bit, what is the current status of the GPS based speed trap / camera warning service(s) in UK ? Have they been challenged by the authorities ? Might they benefit from the outcome of this case ? GPS based devices aren't under threat. Laser detector/jammers should become illegal in the near future.

GPS not yet, they will change that within 2 years, does not matter, I will still use all means nessecary to protect my licence / livelyhoood

[vonhosen]

antispeed said:

vonhosen said: charliegwte said: Digressing only a bit, what is the current status of the GPS based speed trap / camera warning service(s) in UK ? Have they been challenged by the authorities ? Might they benefit from the outcome of this case ? GPS based devices aren't under threat. Laser detector/jammers should become illegal in the near future. GPS not yet, they will change that within 2 years, does not matter, I will still use all means nessecary to protect my licence / livelyhoood

What if they ban you for use of illegal devices though ?
(Surely keeping to limits is the easy cheap way to protect your licence/livelyhood)