Print

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

[Dishevelled Den]

... 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

Yes I can see where you're at here Andy, the difference in this case is that there was already a speed check being operated by police.


In the case of the media, the nearest I can see at the moment to the details of police operations being made known as they happen (with reference to obstruction) - so that people could be forewarned of them with a view to intentionally avoiding prosecution - is where a radio station acting on a tip-off broadcast the current locations of speed checks operating at a specific place and at a specific time.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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

Yes, this has been an offence ever since speed traps have been in operation, therefore decades, as it is perceived that you are perverting the course of justice, or aiding and abetting others in the act of committing an offence.  The first case I can remember was back in the 1970s when a motorist was found guilty of warning others of a speed trap by flashing his lights.