Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cube]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-12115179
 

[tidla]

absolute tosh.

about time the cps had a cut if thats the truth regarding "costs"

[Debs.]

Was he not simply warning other drivers to check their speed; as a matter of civic duty?

In what way might he have possibly interfered with a Police Officer`s duty? Their duty would be to enforce the traffic law and to collect evidence if it were being broken!....Any offence, surely is in the speeding, not in the prevention of other`s accidental speeding? :-?

Had he physically obstructed the laser-gun or grabbed the officer`s arm, I could well understand the prosecution.....`such catch-all cases remind one how unhealthily-cosy can be the relationship between some of those serving on the bench and the police.

[cube]

More "perverting the course of justice"  :-?

Still a load of rollocks 

He admitted it though  ,

"oh sorry officer my hand slipped", now prove it !!!!

 

[Dishevelled Den]

Although it may surprise some here I do agree that this was an inappropriate prosecution.

This sort of 'scoop all' mentality has no place in how the police interact with the public.

Sooner, rather than layer, we will be prosecuted for walking on the cracks on the pavement - all thanks to the desire to police by decree and the tendency for many officers to act like automatons rather than use common sense and discretion.

I would have been surprised in any case if approaching drivers had even noticed the flashing lights on his car such is the disconnect between reality and the alternate reality many seem to inhabit when driving their cars.

[Andy B]

I'm sure I remember another similar incident years ago when the judge said the complete opposite & flashing  on coming traffic was no different from the local paper publishing details of where local 'speed traps' would be that particular week. :-?

[Kevin Wood]

I'm sure I remember another similar incident years ago when the judge said the complete opposite & flashing  on coming traffic was no different from the local paper publishing details of where local 'speed traps' would be that particular week. :-?

Yep, Quentin Wilson was on the radio this morning saying exactly that. If this guy had not represented himself any decent solicitor would have found that there is precedence. Some guy successfully challenged such a ruling in 2003 on the basis that he had no way of knowing whether the traffic he warned was speeding, and therefore couldn't have been perverting the course of justice.

Kevin

[aaronjb]

Perhaps a better title for his charge would be "Obstructing Government tax collection" ..

[Kevin Wood]

Perhaps a better title for his charge would be "Obstructing Government tax collection" ..

 

[Dishevelled Den]

I'm sure I remember another similar incident years ago when the judge said the complete opposite & flashing  on coming traffic was no different from the local paper publishing details of where local 'speed traps' would be that particular week. :-?

Yep, Quentin Wilson was on the radio this morning saying exactly that. If this guy had not represented himself any decent solicitor would have found that there is precedence. Some guy successfully challenged such a ruling in 2003 on the basis that he had no way of knowing whether the traffic he warned was speeding, and therefore couldn't have been perverting the course of justice.

Kevin

In this case it seems that Mr Thompson revealed his guilty mind (mens-rea) by admitting he was trying to warn the on-coming drivers of the police presence (knowing it to be a speed check).

The guilty act was satisfied on the basis of his operating the headlights of the vehicle to reinforce his state of mind.

Anyone appearing before any court of law (criminal or civil) should ensure that they have adequate legal representation although in Mr Thompson's case the wording of the relevant legislation seems difficult to ignore.


(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.


Police Act 1996 Section 89 - subsequent amendments don't seem to altered the prime wording.

(He was prosecuted for Obstruction rather than PCJ)

[Andy B]

....
In this case it seems that Mr Thompson revealed his guilty mind (mens-rea) by admitting he was trying to warn the on-coming drivers of the police presence (knowing it to be a speed check). ......

I still can't see the difference between flashing his lights to warn of the speed check and the local paper publishing details of the current local speed traps (as we have recently had)

[Kevin Wood]

(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.


Police Act 1996 Section 89 - subsequent amendments don't seem to altered the prime wording.

(He was prosecuted for Obstruction rather than PCJ)

I still find that a little hard to swallow. He wasn't preventing the constable from carrying out his duty (which in that case was detecting motoring offences) in any way.

The most his light-flashing could have done is to prevent such offences taking place in the first place, so his role is one of crime prevention, which is surely to be applauded?

Kevin

[Dishevelled Den]

....
In this case it seems that Mr Thompson revealed his guilty mind (mens-rea) by admitting he was trying to warn the on-coming drivers of the police presence (knowing it to be a speed check). ......

I still can't see the difference between flashing his lights to warn of the speed check and the local paper publishing details of the current local speed traps (as we have recently had)

Published details (after the fact) would not have had the same weight as those actions taken at the time or even details of where speed checks may be in the future as there is no guarantee that the police would indeed be operating a check in that specific location. 

[Andy B]

... or even details of where speed checks may be in the future as there is no guarantee that the police would indeed be operating a check in that specific location. 

that's just what we had a couple of months ago, admittedly not a specific location but an area eg north of the borough

[Dishevelled Den]

(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.


Police Act 1996 Section 89 - subsequent amendments don't seem to altered the prime wording.

(He was prosecuted for Obstruction rather than PCJ)

I still find that a little hard to swallow. He wasn't preventing the constable from carrying out his duty (which in that case was detecting motoring offences) in any way.

The most his light-flashing could have done is to prevent such offences taking place in the first place, so his role is one of crime prevention, which is surely to be applauded?

Kevin

Welcome to the vagaries of the law.

If, by his intended actions, people were diverted from committing offences then I can see – in strict application of the relevant law, not in the most sensible application of it - where this offence applies here.

Mr Thompson seems to have been quite clear in his intention of alerting motorists - some possibly speeding (although how he could know for certain escapes me) - with a view to have those motorists reduce speed to avoid possible prosecution.

The altruistic element of his actions cannot apply in law as he appears to have had the intention of obstructing officers in this way by alerting others with a view to have them avoid being caught for speeding (if indeed any were).

Because of the way people are interpreting this matter it’s confirmed in my mind that this was an inappropriate prosecution better dealt with by way of caution and advice from the detecting officer.