Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Joined: Aug 13, 2005 Posts: 18 Location: Worcestershire
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:37 pm Post subject:
sussamb wrote:
It's really simple, if you're warning someone of a speed camera it's because you're assuming they're speeding, therefore you're hindering the potential prosecution of someone breaking the law, that is an offence.
You cannot prosecute any one on an assumption that they may commit a crime! _________________ Home is where I park it!
Joined: Mar 18, 2011 Posts: 4457 Location: West Sussex
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:22 pm Post subject:
That's why I used the word 'potential'
Of course in any case you can, folks are prosecuted all the time for 'planning crimes', the law doesn't always have to wait until it's committed. _________________ Where there's a will ... there's a way.
I'm rather amused by some of the reasoning demonstrated here but the law is pretty clear in such cases.
First of all, and put simply, the Highway Code does not carry the force of law, albeit some Rules explain the effect of legislation - they are distinguished by the words MUST/MUST NOT and usually cite that relevant legislation. Rule 110 does not fall into this category.
Secondly, the police are "having a laugh", as there is no such offence as attempting to obstruct a police officer: in order for obstruction to occur there must be some proof that a crime was actually being committed. In this case, if the police can demonstrate that vehicle(s) were exceeding the speed limit but slowed down upon being warned then an offence was indeed committed. Of course, the only way they can reasonably do that, in the absence of any supporting video, is by using their speed camera, which one suspects shows that no-one in fact triggered it; if any vehicle did then ipso facto no obstruction occurred in respect of that vehicle either, since it didn't slow down. The relevant case law is DPP v Glendinning (2005) - as usual, any magistrates convicting here would be behaving like the bunch of clueless clots that they almost invariably are.
Joined: Mar 18, 2011 Posts: 4457 Location: West Sussex
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:17 am Post subject:
It's an offence covered by section 89 of the 1996 Police Act, carrying a maximum penalty of £1000. However you're willing to test this if you like in practice, please let us know the result _________________ Where there's a will ... there's a way.
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:07 am Post subject:
Seems that DPP v Glendinning (2005) has it covered if you care to read the link.
does the offence in section 89 of the 1996 Police Act, cover warning others not to commit a crime? (And surely unless a motorist is caught speeding at the location, there is no proof a crime was committed.)
It seems that para (2) is the relevant bit here, and reads
Quote:
(2) Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both. {my bold}
It seems to me that the word "obstructs" is the one that should be under debate here. What constitutes "obstruction"? As warning someone else is obviously not a physical obstruction of the PC.
Joined: Mar 18, 2011 Posts: 4457 Location: West Sussex
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:52 am Post subject:
Well there is no need to prove a crime was being committed, the offence is obstruction, that can be physical or some other means. All I know is that I've often discussed this with a friend of mine, who is a sergeant in a Roads Policing Unit, and he's quite happy to charge folks interfering in some way with speed detection. The case quoted of course is back in 2005 so may have been superceded, and also states that there was nothing to suggest the motorists warned had been speeding, this may not always be the case.
Whatever the law may be I'm not prepared to risk it, so if someone would like to put it to the test please crack on and let us know what happens _________________ Where there's a will ... there's a way.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:07 pm Post subject:
Once upon a time, and for a VERY short time, I used to flash oncoming HGVs for this. But then I thought, if you get killed by a speeding HGV, you're just as dead as you would be if killed by a speeding black VW Golf. So I stopped doing even that.
As a complete numpty, I believe if you flash, you are obstructing an officer in carrying out his duty. _________________ Dennis
Back in the days when I was a solicitor in London, it always tickled me when new clients would turn up singing the old refrain: "I know the law/my rights...". Needless to say, they didn't have a clue but it kept my mortgage paid, and the holiday and retirement funds nicely topped up. It seems that the current generation of jobbing lawyers are similarly fortunate!
Trying to keep it brief:
No, DPP v Glendinning has NOT been superseded and 14 years is but the blink of an eye to the law.
There is NO offence of attempted interference.
I'm well aware of what interference IS - and also what it ISN'T. There HAS to be an offence committed/in progress for obstruction to take place; supposition hasn't yet superseded case law or legislation! It's also hardly a state secret that PC (or Sergeant) Plod's knowledge of the law is almost invariably at the same level as that of your average Daily Mail reader - or The Man On The Clapham Omnibus as it used to be phrased in the dim and distant past when I was a law student. If some serving police officer is stupid enough to charge all comers with an offence which he apparently doesn't understand then I hope that his pension fund is fully paid up because he's going to be using it a lot sooner than he anticipated.
Warning/flashing lights can indeed be interference - but there has to be an offence committed, or intended, for the police officer to have been interfered with (if you'll excuse the expression ) In the absence of any proof to the contrary, the circumstances described do NOT constitute interference as there is nothing to show that such an offence occurred or was intended. As I said before, if the police have video showing vehicles exceeding the limit, being flashed and reducing their speed as a result of such action then they have an open and shut case; if they haven't then they're wasting their time, that of the CPS and the courts, and public money to boot.
It's certainly the case that following the speed limit is usually a good course of action and probably saves lives, but the topic here is what the law IS rather than what it perhaps ought to be...
Joined: Jun 25, 2005 Posts: 802 Location: Sandy, Bedfordshire
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:03 pm Post subject:
M8TJT wrote:
It seems that para (2) is the relevant bit here, and reads
Quote:
(2) Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both. {my bold}
I'm interested in the bold bit. There has been a lot of discussions about obstructing Police officers with reference to camera vans. Most operators of camera vans are civvies nowadays and not Police constables, so if the regulation is stating that the offence is obstructing a constable, surely if a civvy is operating there is no offence? _________________ Garmin Drivesmart 51 LMT-D Europe
Joined: Mar 18, 2011 Posts: 4457 Location: West Sussex
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:37 pm Post subject:
jimj40 wrote:
It's also hardly a state secret that PC (or Sergeant) Plod's knowledge of the law is almost invariably at the same level as that of your average Daily Mail reader - or The Man On The Clapham Omnibus as it used to be phrased in the dim and distant past when I was a law student.
It's also true there are some pretty poor solicitors out there _________________ Where there's a will ... there's a way.
Joined: Mar 18, 2011 Posts: 4457 Location: West Sussex
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:38 pm Post subject:
marksfish wrote:
M8TJT wrote:
It seems that para (2) is the relevant bit here, and reads
Quote:
(2) Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both. {my bold}
I'm interested in the bold bit. There has been a lot of discussions about obstructing Police officers with reference to camera vans. Most operators of camera vans are civvies nowadays and not Police constables, so if the regulation is stating that the offence is obstructing a constable, surely if a civvy is operating there is no offence?
Yes, that occurred to me too _________________ Where there's a will ... there's a way.
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:37 am Post subject:
As a DM reader, I find jimij40's inferences that all DM readers are a few sandwiches short of a picnic offensive. Perhaps he would also reflect and edit?
Jesus H Christ, are we are all turning into a load of the permanently offended (by proxy) millennial snowflakes brigade?
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!