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/...
Eric Mc said:
Never argue with a policeman.
Swallow your pride and move on.
+1 Swallow your pride and move on.
Been pulled twice on my bike,and they couldve penalised me quite seriously,didn't argue though,took it on the chin,and both times let off with a slap on the wrist.
Edited by rossw46 on Wednesday 5th January 09:29
Mr Trophy said:
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.
It's not, ergo the CPS is failing in its public duty."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.
Mr Trophy said:
The Sun said:
....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.
Quentin Wilson was interviewed on the BBC news this morning and this was the crux of his position. Why prosecute when actually his actions slowed other drivers down.His other comment was that this sort of case pushed public opinion even further against cameras as they just appeared to be revenue raisers and the safety aspect of what they are there for was long forgotten.
DrTre said:
Mr Trophy said:
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.
It's not, ergo the CPS is failing in its public duty."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.
This just proves 2 things. One, that speed cameras, sorry safety cameras are a revenue raising ploy. And secondly that the police need to meet their targets in achieving convictions.
The motorist is an easy target for the police, easy to catch, easy to prosecute and easy to convict. If you are speeding then you are speeding. It's like a 'digital' law with no leeway. 99% of other 'crimes' are analogue crimes. They have to be proved, they have to be argued over in court. A speeding offence in the eyes of the law, has no mitigating curcumstances. you are Speeding, end of story. It's wrong, unfair and unjust.
The motorist is an easy target for the police, easy to catch, easy to prosecute and easy to convict. If you are speeding then you are speeding. It's like a 'digital' law with no leeway. 99% of other 'crimes' are analogue crimes. They have to be proved, they have to be argued over in court. A speeding offence in the eyes of the law, has no mitigating curcumstances. you are Speeding, end of story. It's wrong, unfair and unjust.
I'm a bit confused with this one - surely he was only commiting an offence if drivers going the other way were speeding? Without the trap catching them how do the officers know these drivers were speeding and if they did catch any speeding drivers surely his warning was ineffective and therefore not an obstruction?
Why wasn't this thrown out of court?
Why wasn't this thrown out of court?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff