‘Obstructing an officer’ - Speed Camera van
Discussion
Yesterday, Northumbria police reported the following:
“A motorist has been forced to shell out more than £200 after parking his vehicle in front of a speed camera van in Sunderland.
Jason Sayers, 47, was arrested by officers after parking in front of the van on Keir Hardie Way on January 28.
He was summonsed to court for obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty but failed to attend and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Sayers was later arrested by police and has now been made to pay £201 after yesterday (Monday) admitting the offence at South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court.
Sayers, of Hendon Close, Sunderland, was made to pay an £86 fine, a victim surcharge of £30 and £85 in costs. The offence will also give him a criminal record.
I find it astonishing that people would park in front of one of these vans when they are there to help prevent someone from being killed or injured by a speeding driver.
Images of this type of incident published on social media gain many likes from similar minded people and offenders are often praised for their actions”
We have all seen numerous videos circulating on social media whereby a car or van parks right in front of a speed camera can, and obstructs the view of the road.
But my question is this: How can someone be prosecuted for obstructing an officer, when the speed camera operators are usually civilian staff?
Maybe the operator of the camera was actually an officer?
I would be grateful if someone could explain this to me.
“A motorist has been forced to shell out more than £200 after parking his vehicle in front of a speed camera van in Sunderland.
Jason Sayers, 47, was arrested by officers after parking in front of the van on Keir Hardie Way on January 28.
He was summonsed to court for obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty but failed to attend and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Sayers was later arrested by police and has now been made to pay £201 after yesterday (Monday) admitting the offence at South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court.
Sayers, of Hendon Close, Sunderland, was made to pay an £86 fine, a victim surcharge of £30 and £85 in costs. The offence will also give him a criminal record.
I find it astonishing that people would park in front of one of these vans when they are there to help prevent someone from being killed or injured by a speeding driver.
Images of this type of incident published on social media gain many likes from similar minded people and offenders are often praised for their actions”
We have all seen numerous videos circulating on social media whereby a car or van parks right in front of a speed camera can, and obstructs the view of the road.
But my question is this: How can someone be prosecuted for obstructing an officer, when the speed camera operators are usually civilian staff?
Maybe the operator of the camera was actually an officer?
I would be grateful if someone could explain this to me.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 6th March 23:48
He'd be best off moving out of the area now. The local police aren't going to forgive this little escapade easily and will now attempt to hound him off the roads by fabricating 'offences' and lying in court - if that hasn't happened already.
A shame he didn't turn up for the court hearing, he could have heard one of the officers threatening him in the corridor afterwards, perhaps. Not that I'd know.
A shame he didn't turn up for the court hearing, he could have heard one of the officers threatening him in the corridor afterwards, perhaps. Not that I'd know.
I know the section of road in question, in fact my mother was caught speeding there a few years ago. Setting aside the whole issue of whether it is illegal to block a speed camera there a number of issues with his parking. He is parked in the opposite direction to oncoming traffic, you can’t really see it in the photo but to do that he has to have crossed diagonal lines in the centre of the carriageway. That in itself is not an offence but you are only meant to do so if necessary and safe. Given that he is parked in the opposite direction to traffic flow and is more in the carriageway than off it I doubt he could successfully agree it was necessary or safe really.
zarjaz1991 said:
He'd be best off moving out of the area now. The local police aren't going to forgive this little escapade easily and will now attempt to hound him off the roads by fabricating 'offences' and lying in court - if that hasn't happened already.
A shame he didn't turn up for the court hearing, he could have heard one of the officers threatening him in the corridor afterwards, perhaps. Not that I'd know.
tA shame he didn't turn up for the court hearing, he could have heard one of the officers threatening him in the corridor afterwards, perhaps. Not that I'd know.
t. 
The Mad Monk said:
Lord Marylebone said:
Sayers ..... has now been made to pay £201 .......
Sayers, of Hendon Close, Sunderland, was made to pay an £86 fine, a victim surcharge of £30 and £85 in costs.
No, he wasn't.Sayers, of Hendon Close, Sunderland, was made to pay an £86 fine, a victim surcharge of £30 and £85 in costs.
Can you elaborate?
My OP was copied directly from Northumbria Police.
zarjaz1991 said:
He'd be best off moving out of the area now. The local police aren't going to forgive this little escapade easily and will now attempt to hound him off the roads by fabricating 'offences' and lying in court - if that hasn't happened already.
A shame he didn't turn up for the court hearing, he could have heard one of the officers threatening him in the corridor afterwards, perhaps. Not that I'd know.
You have quite an imagination A shame he didn't turn up for the court hearing, he could have heard one of the officers threatening him in the corridor afterwards, perhaps. Not that I'd know.
RedWhiteMonkey said:
I know the section of road in question, in fact my mother was caught speeding there a few years ago. Setting aside the whole issue of whether it is illegal to block a speed camera there a number of issues with his parking. He is parked in the opposite direction to oncoming traffic, you can’t really see it in the photo but to do that he has to have crossed diagonal lines in the centre of the carriageway. That in itself is not an offence but you are only meant to do so if necessary and safe. Given that he is parked in the opposite direction to traffic flow and is more in the carriageway than off it I doubt he could successfully agree it was necessary or safe really.
I know the road very well , they’ve been putting the van there for years , I’m amazed that local drivers are still getting caught speeding up there.No doubt the driver of the tipper isn’t going to qualify for mastermind but he could have at least made an effort to come from the other way and park with his bonnet up and hazards on and “ pretend “ he had an issue with his van .
The double yellows don’t work when the fans are leaving the football either , that road is atrocious for parking on the road / pavement as the match is finished.
Funnily enough there are plenty of police within 100 yards supervising the fans leaving the stadium to be too bothered with illegal parking.
Wombat3 said:
Boosted LS1 said:
Surely it's not a crime to park in a safe place just as long as you don't admit to intending to cause an obstruction?
He's on a double yellow - probably didn't leave himself with too much of a case to argue!Man's a fool, badly parked, should have hung his van and crushed him.
dundarach said:
Wombat3 said:
Boosted LS1 said:
Surely it's not a crime to park in a safe place just as long as you don't admit to intending to cause an obstruction?
He's on a double yellow - probably didn't leave himself with too much of a case to argue!Man's a fool, badly parked, should have hung his van and crushed him.
Bad parking isn’t ‘Obstructing an officer’.
All I’m asking for is how some bad parking ends up with a criminal record.
There have been numerous instances of people parking their cars to block speed camera vans, even pedestrians standing in front of the vans with an umberella up, and as far as I know none of these people have ended up arrested for obstructing an officer.
Lord Marylebone said:
dundarach said:
Wombat3 said:
Boosted LS1 said:
Surely it's not a crime to park in a safe place just as long as you don't admit to intending to cause an obstruction?
He's on a double yellow - probably didn't leave himself with too much of a case to argue!Man's a fool, badly parked, should have hung his van and crushed him.
Bad parking isn’t ‘Obstructing an officer’.
All I’m asking for is how some bad parking ends up with a criminal record.
There have been numerous instances of people parking their cars to block speed camera vans, even pedestrians standing in front of the vans with an umberella up, and as far as I know none of these people have ended up arrested for obstructing an officer.
Some using threatening behaviour get nicked, some get told to bugger off.
Some people speeding get a ticket, yet others doing the same speed get told to slow down.
Lord Marylebone said:
But my question is this: How can someone be prosecuted for obstructing an officer, when the speed camera operators are usually civilian staff?
Maybe the operator of the camera was actually an officer?
I would be grateful if someone could explain this to me.
The offence isn't committed only for obstructing a Constable but also obstructing anyone assisting a Constable.Maybe the operator of the camera was actually an officer?
I would be grateful if someone could explain this to me.
Lord Marylebone said:
I find it astonishing that people would park in front of one of these vans when they are there to help prevent someone from being killed or injured by a speeding driver.
It's not there to prevent someone from being killed, it is to catch people speeding and generate money from it.How would this camera van stop someone being killed?
All it makes people do is not take there eyes off of there speedo or makes people slam on the brake even though they are below the limit.
Stats of safety vans saving peoples lives by being parked in a lay by?
vonhosen said:
The offence isn't committed only for obstructing a Constable but also obstructing anyone assisting a Constable.
So a civilian camera van operator is legally classed as ‘assisting a constable’ while working, and therefore interfering with them is ‘obstructing a constable’?Have I got that right?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff