Fined For Warning Speed Trap
Discussion
The Sun said:
A DRIVER who flashed his headlights at oncoming motorists to warn them of a police speed trap has been left with a £440 bill for "obstructing police".
Michael Thompson thought it was his "civic duty" to warn other drivers of the mobile speed cameras ahead.
Thompson, 64, of Grimsby, Lincs, denied wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty on July 21 last year but was convicted after a trial.
The vigorously-pursued prosecution was branded "ridiculous" and "a complete waste of taxpayers' money" by lawyers.
One solicitor praised Thompson and said: "He should be given a medal."
The trial, which took half a day at Grimsby Magistrates, cost the Crown Prosecution Service at least £250 and three police officers were in court for much of that time.
Even they privately questioned the decision to pursue the case to prosecution and admitted that members of the public believed police time should be given to catching criminals.
The trial heard Thompson was driving out of Grimsby on to the A46 dual carriageway when he spotted a police speed trap.
He flashed his headlights about seven times to warn oncoming drivers heading towards Grimsby but was pulled in by the police.
He claimed that, after he challenged the officers, one of them told him: "I was going to let you off with a caution but I'm not now."
He told the court the officer told him he was "perverting the course of justice" but he told the officer: "I don't believe that's the case."
He branded the officer "a Rambo character" and claimed he was acting like "Judge Dredd" in using the law against him unnecessarily.
Solicitor Anton Balkitis, a specialist in motoring law, said most motorists who flash at other drivers to warn them of a speed trap "think they are doing people a favour".
He said: "It does seem somewhat ironic that they are actually encouraging people, by flashing their lights, to drive in a safe manner and yet to be prosecuted for that seems somewhat at odds with the purposes of the legislation.
Advertisement
"But it is an offence of obstruction and people do get taken to court for it so perhaps people need to be made aware of it."
A CPS spokeswoman defended the case, saying: "Cost is not a consideration in our decision to prosecute.
"When a file is provided to the CPS from the police, it is our duty to decide whether it presents a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
"In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors a prosecution was deemed appropriate."
Michael Thompson thought it was his "civic duty" to warn other drivers of the mobile speed cameras ahead.
Thompson, 64, of Grimsby, Lincs, denied wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty on July 21 last year but was convicted after a trial.
The vigorously-pursued prosecution was branded "ridiculous" and "a complete waste of taxpayers' money" by lawyers.
One solicitor praised Thompson and said: "He should be given a medal."
The trial, which took half a day at Grimsby Magistrates, cost the Crown Prosecution Service at least £250 and three police officers were in court for much of that time.
Even they privately questioned the decision to pursue the case to prosecution and admitted that members of the public believed police time should be given to catching criminals.
The trial heard Thompson was driving out of Grimsby on to the A46 dual carriageway when he spotted a police speed trap.
He flashed his headlights about seven times to warn oncoming drivers heading towards Grimsby but was pulled in by the police.
He claimed that, after he challenged the officers, one of them told him: "I was going to let you off with a caution but I'm not now."
He told the court the officer told him he was "perverting the course of justice" but he told the officer: "I don't believe that's the case."
He branded the officer "a Rambo character" and claimed he was acting like "Judge Dredd" in using the law against him unnecessarily.
Solicitor Anton Balkitis, a specialist in motoring law, said most motorists who flash at other drivers to warn them of a speed trap "think they are doing people a favour".
He said: "It does seem somewhat ironic that they are actually encouraging people, by flashing their lights, to drive in a safe manner and yet to be prosecuted for that seems somewhat at odds with the purposes of the legislation.
Advertisement
"But it is an offence of obstruction and people do get taken to court for it so perhaps people need to be made aware of it."
A CPS spokeswoman defended the case, saying: "Cost is not a consideration in our decision to prosecute.
"When a file is provided to the CPS from the police, it is our duty to decide whether it presents a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
"In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors a prosecution was deemed appropriate."
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3330852/...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff