Lords back lorry driver who warned of speed trap
Discussion
Someone put this up on safe speed earlier today
Some sense at last!
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?i
Some sense at last!
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?i
I ALWAYS warn others of accident black spots, well I assume they must be as that's were the scamera vans seem to park 
Might not be over - Keep watching.
The CA has ruled against the DPP and refused leave to appeal to House of Lords. However, DPP can petition the HoL direct to hear their appeal (ie second bite at the cherry). Not sure the time limit before they can't do that and the decision is final.
The CA has ruled against the DPP and refused leave to appeal to House of Lords. However, DPP can petition the HoL direct to hear their appeal (ie second bite at the cherry). Not sure the time limit before they can't do that and the decision is final.
As I said on another thread. The ruling doesn't mean that Police can't successfully prosecute people who warn of Police speed enforcement sites ahead. This case failed because Police didn't provide evidence to show anyone was speeding or likely to prior to the warnings being given , not because the warnings wouldn't have constituted obstruction had there been evidence of that.
Police just have to provide primary evidence of speeding (which can be a Police officer's opinion) prior to that warning in future to satisfy that requirement.
The appeal is just against the necessity to provide that evidence. Prosecutions can still go ahead in the meantime where that evidence is provided.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Monday 8th May 21:04
Police just have to provide primary evidence of speeding (which can be a Police officer's opinion) prior to that warning in future to satisfy that requirement.
The appeal is just against the necessity to provide that evidence. Prosecutions can still go ahead in the meantime where that evidence is provided.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Monday 8th May 21:04
vonhosen said:
As I said on another thread. The ruling doesn't mean that Police can't successfully prosecute people who warn of Police speed enforcement sites ahead.
Well, I suppose it depends on whether the aim is to prevent people speeding or catch people speeding.
how did speed 'enforcement' in this country get to such pettiness.......
Well done to Lord Owen, common sense prevails.
A good point made at the end, if the police are that concerned about speeding motorist they should applaud the efforts of others actualy slowing them down. The reality is they are pissed off that they are loosing revenue and the hole can of worms that is opened by this ruling.
I find it difficult to see how you could successfuly prove that a driver flashing their lights or waving their arms is a signal that there is a speed trap ahead.
"no your honer, I spilt my beer on my hand and stuck it out the window to dry it out"!!!!
I cant help but think that sometimes the police as an organisation are loosing touch with the people they have to serve, i.e. the general public. I personally know 3 police officers and have a great respect, but unfortunatly i find that after a certain amount of time in the force (5 years) and mostly dealing with some of the less fortunate members of society, they seem to begin to treat all people like pikies. I tend to find traffic officers very very professional, expet the one that gave me a ticket for 67 in a 60 on a m-way, but that anothe story.
The more silly things like this that go one by the police and the Government the less respect ordinary peole will have for the police... And thats definatly a bad thing.
A good point made at the end, if the police are that concerned about speeding motorist they should applaud the efforts of others actualy slowing them down. The reality is they are pissed off that they are loosing revenue and the hole can of worms that is opened by this ruling.
I find it difficult to see how you could successfuly prove that a driver flashing their lights or waving their arms is a signal that there is a speed trap ahead.
"no your honer, I spilt my beer on my hand and stuck it out the window to dry it out"!!!!
I cant help but think that sometimes the police as an organisation are loosing touch with the people they have to serve, i.e. the general public. I personally know 3 police officers and have a great respect, but unfortunatly i find that after a certain amount of time in the force (5 years) and mostly dealing with some of the less fortunate members of society, they seem to begin to treat all people like pikies. I tend to find traffic officers very very professional, expet the one that gave me a ticket for 67 in a 60 on a m-way, but that anothe story.
The more silly things like this that go one by the police and the Government the less respect ordinary peole will have for the police... And thats definatly a bad thing.
vonhosen said:The Police will have to show in order to succeed in a prosecution that they had reason to suspect that a particular driver was speeding. Without an offence in relationnto which the warning giver has attempted to obstruct the Police, they have nothing for which to prosecute the warning giver. Except in a case where a driver was prosecuted and the warning giver was also prosecuted, they will fail.
As I said on another thread. The ruling doesn't mean that Police can't successfully prosecute people who warn of Police speed enforcement sites ahead. This case failed because Police didn't provide evidence to show anyone was speeding or likely to prior to the warnings being given , not because the warnings wouldn't have constituted obstruction had there been evidence of that.
Police just have to provide primary evidence of speeding (which can be a Police officer's opinion) prior to that warning in future to satisfy that requirement.
The appeal is just against the necessity to provide that evidence. Prosecutions can still go ahead in the meantime where that evidence is provided.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Monday 8th May 21:04
vonhosen said:
As I said on another thread. The ruling doesn't mean that Police can't successfully prosecute people who warn of Police speed enforcement sites ahead. This case failed because Police didn't provide evidence to show anyone was speeding or likely to prior to the warnings being given , not because the warnings wouldn't have constituted obstruction had there been evidence of that.
Police just have to provide primary evidence of speeding (which can be a Police officer's opinion) prior to that warning in future to satisfy that requirement.
The appeal is just against the necessity to provide that evidence. Prosecutions can still go ahead in the meantime where that evidence is provided.
If you don't want me to stop a crime by getting a driver to slow down before you catch him, pardon me for not hitting that gunman with my brolly before he points his gun at you and shoots....
I'm thankful that some people still flash to warn others of impending scams, not that I've ever seen anybody slow down to below the speed limit because of this, because that would mean that the flasher was breaking the law, which they weren't.
The revolution will come and the scammers will shit themselves, I can't wait.
The revolution will come and the scammers will shit themselves, I can't wait.
Zod said:
As I said on another thread. The ruling doesn't mean that Police can't successfully prosecute people who warn of Police speed enforcement sites ahead. This case failed because Police didn't provide evidence to show anyone was speeding or likely to prior to the warnings being given , not because the warnings wouldn't have constituted obstruction had there been evidence of that.
Police just have to provide primary evidence of speeding (which can be a Police officer's opinion) prior to that warning in future to satisfy that requirement.
The appeal is just against the necessity to provide that evidence. Prosecutions can still go ahead in the meantime where that evidence is provided.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Monday 8th May 21:04
That's not true.
They don't have to prosecute the other driver for speeding, they merely have to give opinion that a vehicle was speeding before the warning was given & that the warning then prevented them getting the secondary evidence required to prosecute the other driver. That's the obstruction.
One of the stated cases referred to in the "Glendining" case highlighted this. The case "Betts v Stevens" dates back to 1910 & is where an AA patrolman was convicted of obstruction. In that case, Police provided just primary evidence of speeding (officers opinion) but were obstructed from getting the secondary check because of the warning given by the AA patrolman. he was convicted & the case still stands.
In the Glendining case that primary speeding evidence wasn't given & that's why it failed, not because no speeder was prosecuted or the headlamp flash wasn't considered a warning in order NOT to stop an offence happening (because it already would be), but merely to stop detection of that offence. That is the important distinction made by the courts about the purpose of the warning.
Camera warning signs are to discourage offence in the first place, the headlamp flash is to prevent a detection of an offence that is already being committed.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th May 06:49
mybrainhurts said:
As I said on another thread. The ruling doesn't mean that Police can't successfully prosecute people who warn of Police speed enforcement sites ahead. This case failed because Police didn't provide evidence to show anyone was speeding or likely to prior to the warnings being given , not because the warnings wouldn't have constituted obstruction had there been evidence of that.
Police just have to provide primary evidence of speeding (which can be a Police officer's opinion) prior to that warning in future to satisfy that requirement.
The appeal is just against the necessity to provide that evidence. Prosecutions can still go ahead in the meantime where that evidence is provided.
If you don't want me to stop a crime by getting a driver to slow down before you catch him, pardon me for not hitting that gunman with my brolly before he points his gun at you and shoots....
But that is the difference.
The court says they can make a distinction easily from the evidence, between where the intention is to prevent crime happening OR merely to suspend the crime taking place to avoid detection of it.
Doesn't it just show what an utter ass the law is!
I flash my lights to warn of speed trap to an approaching car. Car slows down(if they were speeding) to below the limit, therefor now driving at a "safe" speed. BiB sees this happen, I get done because they would have prefered approaching car to continue driving too fast and killing every one so that they could do him and prove their excistance is warranted.
Who says its all about safety
I flash my lights to warn of speed trap to an approaching car. Car slows down(if they were speeding) to below the limit, therefor now driving at a "safe" speed. BiB sees this happen, I get done because they would have prefered approaching car to continue driving too fast and killing every one so that they could do him and prove their excistance is warranted.
Who says its all about safety
TOPTON said:
Doesn't it just show what an utter ass the law is!
I flash my lights to warn of speed trap to an approaching car. Car slows down(if they were speeding) to below the limit, therefor now driving at a "safe" speed. BiB sees this happen, I get done because they would have prefered approaching car to continue driving too fast and killing every one so that they could do him and prove their excistance is warranted.
Who says its all about safety
I got properly saved on the M6 north of Carlisle a few months ago by an oncoming car flashing madly at me. I saw the flash, immediately slowed to 70, rounded a curve, scamera van on the bridge.
I've never been so grateful to another driver in my life, without him I'd have had a 6 month ban for sure.
It's par for the course for the french drivers to give a warning to oncoming drivers as witnessed on trips to Le Mans. They even let us Rosbif's know.
The use of the 'obstruction' law in this context is a flagrant abuse of it's purpose. It's also completely open to abuse by (the few) bent coppers. It's simple enough to claim 'an opinion of speeding' where it wasn't obvious.
This is shown clearly by the routing lasering of vehicles appearing ground a bend up to two miles from the scammer (civvy or plod). There's no way a judgement of law breaking could have been made but the laser is used anyway.
The drivers who would heed the warning and 'get away with it' are very few - most people warned will probbaly not be speeding. Even fewer would be travelling as a speed that is dangerous in the conditions.
This is another case where policy will only continue to widen the gap between the pulic and the police. At a time where public cooperation with BiB is at an all time low it would be common sense to seek to redress this by some common sense policing but that seems to be beyond the powers that be.
There's nothing, other then revenue and resentment, to be gained from this type of prosecution in this context.
The use of the 'obstruction' law in this context is a flagrant abuse of it's purpose. It's also completely open to abuse by (the few) bent coppers. It's simple enough to claim 'an opinion of speeding' where it wasn't obvious.
This is shown clearly by the routing lasering of vehicles appearing ground a bend up to two miles from the scammer (civvy or plod). There's no way a judgement of law breaking could have been made but the laser is used anyway.
The drivers who would heed the warning and 'get away with it' are very few - most people warned will probbaly not be speeding. Even fewer would be travelling as a speed that is dangerous in the conditions.
This is another case where policy will only continue to widen the gap between the pulic and the police. At a time where public cooperation with BiB is at an all time low it would be common sense to seek to redress this by some common sense policing but that seems to be beyond the powers that be.
There's nothing, other then revenue and resentment, to be gained from this type of prosecution in this context.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff