... but people will only stop mentioning them when the plumbing of depths of insanity stops. Now someone has not only been fined but lost his licence (note that the loss of licence is, in effect, without allowing appeal) for warning drivers to slow down near where a lot of people were crossing the road, using a warning of a speed camera ahead to do so. He had done so before without the speed camera warning when there had been no speed trap. This is nuts - at worst he should have had the sign taken off him. Full story in the Telegraph. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/03/ncam03.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/03/ixhome.html)

Poor sod wanted to slow people down to make the road safer.
If this doesn't prove that speed cameras are for cash generation only, what does?

:( sad state of affairs, I'm even more confused by him receiving a driving ban?!

Now I know this might 'set the cat amongst the pigeons' but... we have had (probably like many others) a massive influx of new Gatso's around here (and yes, they are Gatso's). Now, at all of these new locations (new being over the past two months or so) we have yet to see the 'tell tale' row of little white markings on the road.

Does this mean they are not yet fully operational? (and no, this does not mean I intend to flout the law and speed past them with ones bare behind placed against the rear window).

Reading the article it does not sound as if it was for the benefit of pedestrians

Asked if he knew there was a speed camera ahead he said: "Yes, that is why I am doing it".

Also I take it this is the car boot in the car park at the junction of the A325 and A327, where you cannot access the car boot by crossing the road, you have to use the underpass.

I think there is more to this than the paper shows.

Still no excuse for not just giving him a warning and taking his sign. Thugs get a caution for crimes that actually harm people directly, deliberately and with spite or selfishness. Why the difference?

Despite the rather curious logic, this is not the first time someone has been convicted of obstructing police in the execution of their duty by warning motorists to slow down when approaching a speed trap.
How times change. When I was very young, AA patrolmen were instructed to salute AA members. (They rode motorcycle combinations in those days.) If a patrolman didn’t salute, members were advised to stop and ask the reason why. I doubt if anyone did - they knew if a patrolmen didn’t salute there was a speed trap ahead. The practice, which provided a very useful service to members, was abandoned when patrolmen were threatened with prosecution for obstructing police. I don’t know if anyone was actually prosecuted.

I’m puzzled by the disqualification in this case, not only because it seems completely over the top on the facts, but also because I don’t understand what power the magistrates had to disqualify. NB: I haven’t done a motoring case in the magistrates courts for more than 25 years so the fact I don’t understand doesn’t mean much.

Courts have power under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to disqualify where a vehicle is used for purposes of crime. The Telegraph report doesn’t suggest this chap was sitting in his car warning drivers but, even if he was, the power is only available if someone is convicted of a crime which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment or more. Obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty (contrary to s.89 of the Police Act 1996) carries a maximum sentence of one month.
Further, even if he was sitting in his car with a warning sign or the placard was leaning against his car, disqualification for using a vehicle for the purpose of crime should not be imposed if the use of the car is only incidental to the offence - and especially where no driving is involved.

Disqualification should generally be restricted to cases involving bad driving, persistent motoring offences or the use of vehicles for the purpose of crime. I’m at a loss to understand why he was disqualified.
If he appeals to the Crown Court, a Judge will immediately suspend his disqualification until the appeal is heard.

Send Clowns
I agree. This seems like a case where a warning would have been sufficient.

Perhaps he can be equally helpful next time the local police plan a drug raid. He could public-spiritedly tip off the dealers to get rid of the gear before the cops arrive, thus preventing the crime of supplying.

Pity he wasn't around at Heathrow the other day, either. If he had been he could have told the armed robbers not to smash into the warehouse (that had been staked out by the police) and thereby prevent a crime from taking place.

Everyone knows what he was doing and why he was doing it. The rest is pure sophistry.

By the way FL: the law changed at the beginning of the year and courts can now disqualify for non-motoring offences. In practice it is being used for illegal taxi touts, kerb crawlers, certain types of harassment, and other crimes where a car is in the picture.

The Resident Judge at my local Crown Court has asked us not normally to grant bail pending appeal, nor to suspend disquals, because these appeals are expedited, and it puts the judge into a potential cat-and-mouse situation.

U_R

Thanks for the info about the new law.
I don't understand the 'cat-and-mouse' point. Apologies if I'm being slow. :confused:

May I ask: Do you think it's appropriate to disqualify someone from driving in circumstances such as these? Harding said he had stood at the same spot, on the A325 at Farnborough, on previous Sundays warning drivers of the car boot sale, and had received a thumbs-up sign from a passing police car. But the attitude of officers changed when he warned drivers of the speed camera. Sophistry? In the absence of evidence to rebut this assertion, why do you assume he was lying?

Isn't it a requirement that there has to be a permanent 'Speed Camera' sign displayed before a mobile camera can operate?

Anyway, U_R you are showing your usual hostility to the motorist, being flippant and comparing a speeding offence with a serious criminal offence. I'm sure that with your newly granted powers you'll ban the next poor sod that comes in front of you for not clearing up his own chewing gum.

Mr Raptor, I think that comparing this situation to a drugs raid is a wee bit over the top...

It seems to me that this gent was slowing cars down. Is that not the point of a speed camera? So what EXACTLY did he do wrong? Unless the point of the camera was to CATCH people, not to slow them down.....

So what EXACTLY did he do wrong?
He caused the cars to slow down, making it safer for pedestrians and preventing the police from making money from them. Guess which bit is significantly more important for the police?

So let me get this straight. The guy was prosecuted for preventing a crime from taking place ?

:confused:

Ah, with attitudes of professionals in the legal system like U_R then it is no wonder the whole thing is going to ratsht. Automatically the man must be lying, and of course saving people a speeding fine is pretty much equivalent to preventing them being caught for robbery or drug dealing. That is why ordinary driver a little outside the law get similar penalties to violent offenders, drug dealers and thieves.

U_R will never admit he is wading into the class war, abusing his position for political purposes ;) . Typical middle-class lawbreakers, speeding, must be treated the same as typical lower-class offenders, fighting, mugging and pushing crack.

He broke the law. He must be punished.

admittedly it is a tad harsh, in the same way that the tees estury is a tad muddy, or leeds is a tad moist. but he did deserve to be punished.

The same must be applied to this comparison between speeding motorists and drug dealers. both break the law. both must be punished. where it all falls down is the judiciary (sp?) who are letting off crack pushers, pimps and heroin sellers, and prosecuting the motorists to the full extent. partly because (imho) they know that the motorist will be paying his own legal fees, and cannot afford to appeal, fight a long case etc etc. again i should stress thats IMHO.

Matty (3pts)

In a previous life, I was a traffic cop in Surrey. Send was an area where the locals complained of speeding motorists; a site where the offenders were plentiful.

One saturday morning, I was pleasently surprised of the lack of offenders and initially thought that the message had eventually come through. Moving on to the next complaint site, I drove past a house behind where I was working to see two young eight year olds with two signs warning trafic that I was there.

Years of prosecuting motorists had not had the desired effect of reducing the speed of traffic but two eight year old lads had managed it with a wax crayon and a piece of cardboard.

Needless to say the lads were not penalised but praised for their ingenuity.

Shame that times have changed so.



U_R, What law has changed? Do you know the new one the magistrates used to prosecute?

So is it a law now to "prevent' others from breaking the law?

Tis more proof that speed cameras are only a revenue raising exercise. If the police and lawmakers were serious about safety then they too would make their presence known. I wonder how many drink drivers etc go past these cameras without being detected.

Send Clowns
It's been shown over and over Unwell_Raptor is NOT a "professional in the legal system". He's an amateur unqualified non-professional in the legal system under the JP system.

U-R
It's nothing personal, I guess you're a fine guy, but your opinions are real frightening. You ALWAYS take the prosecution side in every discussion. Can you see why that looks so bad for the legal system when you make such a big deal of being a magistrate who tries people. I've learnt that magistrates in England only try trivial cases but even trivial cases can be very important to the citizen whose on trial.

I am not too surprised that one or two people have taken exception to my view, but may I ask, quite simply, what is the difference in principle between the examples that I have made up and this case?

If you warn offenders that the police are waiting for them then, by the logic above you prevent a crime. You do not in fact do so, in my view. What you do is obstruct justice.

SC:

Even by your standards, your rant is a corker.

"Ah, with attitudes of professionals in the legal system like U_R"

I am not a professional, but a layman. I am advised by professionals.

"That is why ordinary driver a little outside the law get similar penalties to violent offenders, drug dealers and thieves."

That assertion is laughably untrue, but there is no point in going into detail as your mind is clearly made up.

"U_R will never admit he is wading into the class war, abusing his position for political purposes . Typical middle-class lawbreakers, speeding, must be treated the same as typical lower-class offenders, fighting, mugging and pushing crack".

No, I won't admit anything of the sort because it isn't remotely true. I am middle class, I live in a nice house and I drive a powerful car, and the core of my assertions that so annoy you is that the law applies to middle class drivers like me just as it applies to those awful oiks off the council estates. There is nothing special about motoring law, any more than there is about theft law.

If you want to see what really happens in court, rather than rely on the Daily Mail, come and visit my court when I am sitting. I will get you a decent seat, and you can begin to build an informed view of the criminal justice system, rather than the distorted one you hold today.

I'll even buy you a pint at lunchtime.

Bronx:

I never take the prosecution side. I take the side of the law, and the law alone. I took a judicial oath that I try to honour every time that I sit. As I have said ad nauseam, I have little patience with middle class professionals who need the law's protection more than anyone but who then assert that there is something special about the speeding laws.

For the umpteenth time, you cannot dine a la carte at the table of the law.

U_R

Do you think it's appropriate to disqualify someone from driving for warning other motorists about the presence of a speed trap?

It can be.

The law (about which I have personal reservations, as I do about so much that emanates from the Home Office) as explained to me by my legal adviser now allows a court to disqualify in connection with any offence, but the expectation is that disqual. is used for offences involving vehicles or where there are other vehicle-related factors. There is, as far as I know, no case law yet, nor any appeals to draw on.

As you point out, there is nothing new about prosecutions for warning of speed traps, and the law appears to be settled in that area. I shall await my Clerk's advice with bated breath.

U_R - A little bit of intellectual honesty wouldn't go amiss. You know perfectly well what is different about the two examples.

In the drugs case, the law has already been broken and the person is helping the offenders evade capture. In the other case the gentleman was encouraging motorists to obey the law.

The government also erect signs warning motorists of the presence of speed cameras. Perhaps they should be prosecuted too ?

U_R

"It can be."
That answer's worthy of Microsoft. ;)

If I asked you if it was appropriate to send someone of previous good character to prison for stealing something valued at £5, I assume (ie I hope :eek: ) you'd say no - unequivocally.

In what circumstances do you think it 'could be' appropriate to disqualify someone of previous good character for warning other motorists of the existence of a speed trap?
(Please assume he/she hasn't previously been warned or Cautioned for warning motorists.)

I can already hear the cries of 'cop out!' but I would have to look at the circumstances, talk to my colleagues, run it past the Clerk, and decide. That's why you have a Bench rather than a computer doing the job.

You, better than anyone here, know that no two cases are alike, so I am afraid that 'it can be' has to be the best that I can manage.

Of course it's a 'cop out'.

I would have to look at the circumstances
X is convicted after trial of wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty.
He displayed a sign giving motorists advanced warning of a speed camera being operated by the police 300 yards further along the road." His sign said "Speed Trap - 300 yards ahead"
His defence was that he was deterring motorists from speeding rather than wilfully obstructing the police.
His defence was rejected and he was convicted.

X is 71, of good character and has no previous convictions. He has not previously been warned or Cautioned for the same conduct.

talk to my colleagues
For the purpose of the question: They ask you to give your opinion first.

run it past the Clerk
Your Clerk advises that you have power to disqualify. The power is discretionary. ie You can disqualify if you consider disqalification is appropriate. She knows of no similar cases which have been dealt with by judges either in the Crown Court or Court of Appeal, and there are no relevant sentencing guidelines.

no two cases are alike
(I think that's an over-statement but: For the purposes of the question, please use the facts of the fictitious case above.


Do you think it would be appropriate to disqualify in the above circumstances?

Oh go on then, you cunning old advocate.

X is 71

(Mitigation)

of good character and has no previous convictions

(More mitigation)

He has not previously been warned or Cautioned for the same conduct.

See above

talk to my colleagues
For the purpose of the question: They ask you to give your opinion first.

No, as I am chairman, they always go first, junior to have first go.

run it past the Clerk

Your Clerk advises that you have power to disqualify. The power is discretionary. ie You can disqualify if you consider disqalification is appropriate. She knows of no similar cases which have been dealt with by judges either in the Crown Court or Court of Appeal, and there are no relevant sentencing guidelines.

Given the age and the lack of previous, probably not. You missed the credit for a plea of guilty, but I will allow it despite the advocate's absent-mindedness. (edit: bugger, I think the plea was NG - oops!)

So no ban then, in this hypothetical case.

(Caveat)

If the defendant is in fact someone with the initials SC, delete the above and substitute a sentence of six months' service in a Social Security office on a crap estate with Tony Blair speeches on the sound system.

Are you trying to say, U_R, that everyone convicted of first offense of assault, intent to supply or a crime of dishonesty gets a harsher sentence than this? You have to be kidding! Many get a caution for some of these offenses. My source of information is acquaintances (my housemate, an occasional offender, my brother, a police officer for example) not the press.

In case you missed the smilie, my class war comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although I think well-justified. You really haven't noticed that most combatants in the class war are actually middle class have you? That Prescott is well known for his two jags - he took £9000 off me because I was middle class (poor and unemployed, mind, but middle class) with middle class aspirations. You saying a Jag isn't a middle-class, powerful car, or that Prescott isn't a class warrior.

Are you denying that a man got a large fine and lost his licence for slowing people down (I would agree had police had a word with him, you could argue he was not doing the right thing, but...)? Are you denying that someone was at about the same time fined 1/8 the amount for killing someone while driving without licence, insurance or a road-legal vehicle? That is what is happening in our courts. That is not justice. This is from the Telegraph and the BBC, not the Mail, a comic I occasionally read but only because my landlord buys it. If you deny these things then supply the evidence to back your assertions.

Grainger has some excellent points. The signs are not only put up warning of cameras but if they are incorrect (as an off-duty policeman knew they were near here) the camera evidence is invalid. Why is this warning any worse than the mandated warnings?

SC
Bad idea to post when you've had a few drinks my friend. ;)

Send Clowns

U_R and I hold totally different views about the conduct of the gentleman in the Telegraph story, and about the way the matter was dealt with. I think he should have been warned not prosecuted, and disagree that the arguments advanced in this thread amount to 'sophistry.' I think they are reasonable arguments, and consider comparisons with tipping off criminals engaged in serious crime aren't helpful.
No surprises there - I can't remember agreeing with any opinion he's ever expressed in any of the 'motoring' threads over the years. Like you, I think motorists are generally treated far too harshly - by Parliament, the Police and the Courts - especially when compared with the way in which people who've committed criminal offences (in the ordinary meaning of the term 'criminal') are treated.
However, it doesn't help the credibility of your arguments if you make sweeping and inaccurate assertions.
I appreciate your questions were addressed to U_R but, in fairness to him, magistrates courts don't deal with the 'death on the roads' offences mentioned below.

'Are you denying that a man got a large fine and lost his licence for slowing people down'
Unless I missed it, the Telegraph report doesn't actually mention a fine but, I accept, he was ordered to pay a substantial amount in costs to the prosecution and, for reasons I simply don't understand, was also disqualifed from driving.

'Are you denying that someone was at about the same time fined 1/8 the amount for killing someone while driving without licence, insurance or a road-legal vehicle?'
Yes.
There is no offence of 'Killing someone while driving'. That's Parliament's decision. The offences are:
Causing Death by Dangerous Driving,
and
Causing Death by Careless Driving whilst unfit to drive through drink or drugs, or having consumed alcohol above the prescribed (breath-test) limit.

'That is what is happening in our courts.'
No, it isn't.

'If you deny these things then supply the evidence to back your assertions.'
You're the one making the assertion - what evidence have you got that people convicted of either of the two offences I've mentioned are fined? I don't know of any such case. If it exists, it would have been for truly exceptional circumstances.
I'll happily respond by telling you, with examples, the sort of sentences people actually receive for those offences.

FL

I accept it was not worded in legal language, but plain English. The fine was for motoring offenses that caused someone's death. The fine was, from memory, £80. Fair enough, the money from the man in the other case was not a fine but cost, however from the point of view of punishment what difference does it make to the individual? This is exactly my case in point, these legal niceties do not make any difference to the man on the street. One man slows people down, and is forced to pay £360 and loses his licence. Someone else with no licence, driving an unfit car illegally and thereby killing someone is forced to pay £80. That is what is happening in our courts, and it is not justice. The exact charges are only material in deciding where the fault lies in the injustice.

Malicious prosecution - it's that simple !

"The fine was for motoring offenses that caused someone's death."

No it wasn't. As FL has already explained, those sort of offences are dealt with at Crown Court, and almost always result in a prison sentence. There was no allegation of careless or dangerous driving in this case.

"Fair enough, the money from the man in the other case was not a fine but cost, however from the point of view of punishment what difference does it make to the individual?"

You completely misunderstand. The obstruct police man pleaded not guilty and lost. Therefore he had to pay a contribution to the costs. Loser pays is usual in a court case.

"Someone else with no licence, driving an unfit car illegally and thereby killing someone"

Have another look at that "thereby". Not true is it?

SC

I entirely agree it makes no practical difference to the individual whether the money he's ordered to pay is a fine or the prosecution's costs. I mentioned it in passing simply in the interests of accuracy - no more than that.

I wasn't trying to make any points about 'legal language'. I always try to write my posts in plain English - where necessary translating the formal words of an offence into plain English. However, even in plain English, we have to be a little more precise than 'fined for motoring offences that caused someone's death' before being able to express any useful opinion on whether the fine was fair or outrageously lenient.
And, we'd need to know a little more of what actually happened.
eg
'Someone with no licence'
That doesn't necessarily mean he was driving badly. Was it proved (or even alleged) that he drove carelessly or dangerously?
'driving an unfit car illegally'
Was it proved (or even alleged) that the state of the car had any bearing on the accident?
'thereby killing someone'
You say 'thereby'. Is that the case? If someone drives a vehicle when it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving a vehicle in that state would be dangerous, then the driver will be charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. If convicted, he will be sent to prison, not fined - unless there are truly exceptional circumstances.
The exact charges are only material in deciding where the fault lies in the injustice.
I don't agree. It's essential to know the exact charges or, more to the point, the exact charges of which he was found guilty before it's possible to form any view of whether there was an injustice.
There are obviously some important facts missing from your very brief summary.

There is no offence of Causing Death by (simple) Careless Driving. That is Parliament's decision. It is an offence to cause death by careless driving where the driver was unfit through drink or drugs, or was over the legal alcohol limit at the time. It's a relatively new offence. (1988?)
Parliament had the opportunity to create an offence of Causing Death by Careless Driving - regardless of whether alcohol was involved - but it chose not to do so. Whether you think Parliament was right or wrong, you can't blame the courts.

Unless someone causes death by dangerous driving, or by careless driving while under the influence of drink/drugs etc, then the punishment is likely to be quite low. That's Parliament's decision.
Careless Driving and Dangerous Driving are different offences - the second being more serious and carrying more severe penalties. Careless driving doesn't necessarily amount to Dangerous Driving.
The offence of Dangerous Driving can be committed in various ways - either relating to the driving itself, or by driving a vehicle when it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving a vehicle in that state would be dangerous. That's why I mentioned needing to know more of the facts in the example you gave. Unless there are truly exceptional circumstances,
people convicted of causing death by dangerous driving are sent to prison.

If a sober driver driving a roadworthy car drives carelessly - but not so badly as to be dangerously - and causes an accident in which someone dies, then he will be prosecuted for Careless Driving. There is no more serious offence for which he can be prosecuted.
Careless Driving is a relatively minor offence which is dealt with only in the magistrates courts. I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think the maximum penalty is a fine, disqualification (at the discretion of the court) and penalty points.
When fixing the amount of the fine, the magistrates are entitled to take into account the fact that someone died, but they also have to take into account the defendant's ability to pay. The fine often seems to be too low. The result: Shock! Horror! Outrageous! Courts are too soft! headlines in the tabloids - when, in fact, the Court's hands restricted by Parliament.

BTW, I agree with the distinction between careless and dangerous driving and I'm not convinced someone who causes death by careless driving (eg momentary inattention) should necessarily be sent to prison. Maybe Parliament was right - I'm undecided.


(Edit)

U_R
Please forgive me for being lazy but would you mind asking your court's legal adviser where I can find this new law you mentioned earlier in the thread which gives magistrates power to disqualify someone from driving if they are convicted of 'any offence'.
She's very experienced in the Magistrates Courts and will no doubt have your powers at her fingertips whereas I'd take a long time to find it. I've had a quick look and found nothing so far.

Thanks.
Tudor

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.146.

Text on the HMSO website.

Thanks - and please pass on my thanks to G. ;)

I quoted from s. 147 yesterday but forgot about s. 146 - I didn't know it was yet in force.

What an ridiculous law! :rolleyes:

(1) I am not in general opposed to speed cameras and controls.

(2) Despite the above, a cynical impulse leads me to suspect that there may be a revenue motive in relation to certain speed controls (but by no means all or most of them).

(3) Some speed controls appear to make little sense: the 40 and 50 mph limits on the wide, safe, multi-lane roads which link to the M11 from central London are bizarre: 60 or 70 would be better limits.

(3) I know that I have moderated my own driving after being caught by speed cameras, and regard this as a good thing. Warning people so that they can avoid feeling the sting of a speeding fine can be regarded as contrary to the broader public interest.

(4) I agree with UR: the defendant's arguments in the case that started this sound to me like sophistry.

FNG

Sophistry?
Does that mean you don't believe the pensioner's assertion that he'd stood at the same spot on previous Sundays with a sign warning drivers to slow down passing the car boot sale even when there was no speed camera there?
If so, on what basis? There's nothing in the report to suggest the police claimed his assertion wasn't true.
The old boy claimed he was worried about the danger to pedestrians of motorists speeding at that spot. Is there anything to suggest there was actually a problem? Yes - the police put a speed trap there.
He'd tried before and thought telling people there was a speed trap ahead would do the triok. It did, but he ended up in court being prosecuted.
He seems outraged at not being believed. I think if I was a retired respectable man of 71 who'd never been in trouble in my life I'd be outraged at being disbelieved when I gave evidence in court.
It wasn't even as if the JPs had to choose between his word and that of police officers. Do you think there might be a tendency for magistrates to assume defendants in motoring cases aren't being truthful?

Anyway, let's hope when he appeals his disqualification will be lifted whether or not he wins his appeal against being convicted.

You can get 16/1 on Rule of Law in the Derby tomorrow.

I shall be there, and I shall risk a tenner or so.

Might say I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

After reading the various posts I must declare my total support for the pensioner cruelly punished for doing the same job as the "speed trap" but of course not providing any revenue to the "funds". I sincerely hope that if I find myself in a similar position I meet a pro in court and not a bystander.
I'm with you SC and the poster (AV18tor) who reminded us how it used to be in a more sensible age.

Heliport:


From the Telegraph article:-

'Asked if he knew there was a speed camera ahead he said: "Yes, that is why I am doing it".'

Not my words; his.

PS: I think that a disqualification from driving was harsh, and hope that the sentence is reduced on appeal.

Not his words, the police officer's. FNG, try reading what you use to justify your argument. Note that he was effectively denied an appeal, as the ban was not suspended.

SC, I have re-read the article, and the words quoted are attributed to the defendant. It may well be that not a word of the article is true (after all, it appears in the Daily Telegraph), but the discussion here appears to be premised on the facts described in the article.

As for the appeal not being suspended, that is an error on the part of the Magistrates, in my opinion. An expedited judicial review could cure the error, and perhaps the bloke can find a pressure group to support his challenge.

FNG
Assuming that answer was given and accurately recorded by the police, perhaps it would be fair to read it in context:
Sgt Sarah Cashman told the court that when she cautioned Harding and confiscated the sign he told her: "I stop people speeding down here. I am only doing what I think is right". Asked if he knew there was a speed camera ahead he said: "Yes, that is why I am doing it".
On previous occasions, the speed trap wasn't there so his sign merely warned motorists to slow down because of the market. When the speed trap was set up he changed his sign. Is it so incredible that he thought his plea to motorists to slow down might be more effective if he drew attention to the existence of the speed trap? According to the police, it had the effect he desired - drivers slowed down.

He comes across to me as an old codger obsessed with slowing down speeding motorists. Many good natured motorists flash their lights at oncoming traffic to warn other drivers they are approaching a speed trap but I doubt if many people would give up their time simply to prevent complete strangers being caught speeding.

Given the Chairman's comments when sentencing, perhaps the magistrates overlooked the fact that the offence isn't made out unless the obstruction is 'wilful'. Or, to borrow U_R's phrase, perhaps they were too keen to 'take the side of the law.' ;)
That's no more than a possible explanation, but ignoring their Clerk's strongly worded hint to suspend disqualification pending appeal might be an indication of their attitude.

Not being familiar with the subtleties of the UK legal system, there is an aspect to this that leaves me confused. Perhaps UR or FL can shed light.

Since this chap was pinged for "obstructing justice" how did the police prove it?

To my mind, there are only two scenarios:

1. Cars continued to speed past his sign and were duly picked up by the laser gun. In this case, to my mind at least, justice was not obstructed.

2. Cars did not speed past his sign and the laser gun. If cars were not speeding, they were not breaking the law. Therefore, once again in my non-legal mind, the detection of what transgression was being obstructed?

If (2) was the case, did the police give any evidence that cars were speeding before the sign? If they didn't, how do they know that anyone was speeding? If they did find them speeding before the sign, were any of them booked?


I note that the prosecutor said
"the intention was that any motorist contravening road traffic regulations by driving at excessive speed would avoid doing so having been given notice of what the police were doing"

How do the police prove what these motorists may or may not have done? They didn't appear to call any as witnesses. Where I live we have several fixed speed cameras and their locations are well publicised yet many motorists still get done, and rightly so, for exceeding the limit ( and some by considerable margins).


I am simply going on the report as linked in the first post so obviously there may be significant details missing.

I would be grateful if one of our esteemed and learned legal people could point out where I must have lost the plot somewhere, because surely it can't be that simple.

sep

in new zealand, they have taken down all the 'warning signs'
so speed cameras can be anywhere, anytime, now while yes it creates large amounts of cash for the governments coffers, the simple fact is if you dont speed you wont get a ticket, period, no point moaning bout it,

separator

You haven't lost the plot and, legal mind or not, your analysis is astute and IMHO sensible.
Unfortunately IMHO it's well-established law here - as the courts have interpreted the offence - that someone who warns drivers they are approaching a speed trap may be guilty of the offence of 'Wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty'.
Of course, it's also well-established that the law can be an ass on occasions. ;)
(Although nothing like as often as some contributors to Jetblast appear to believe.)

It would be very easy for Parliament to make it a specific offence to warn drivers, but it hasn't done so. I've always been uncomfortable about 'Wilful Obstruction' being used for the purpose.

However, although someone who warns drivers may (as a matter of law) be guilty of Wilful Obstruction, a court should still look at all the circumstances of the individual case to determine whether that case is proved.
On the particular facts of this case, I'm surprised the magistrates convicted him and, even if he was technically guilty, I'm staggered at the severity of the punishment.


Your analysis also identified one of the flaws in Unwell_Raptor's argument in his first response on page 1:
U_R's comparisons weren't true analogies because they both related to tipping off people who were already actually committing offences at the time - in contrast to this old chap who was warning people who may or may not have committed an offence if they hadn't seen his sign.

Could someone with a legal mind better than mine explain why this guy was prosecuted at all?

Every week in my local newspaper, there is a long list of locations where so-called "camera safety units" will be positioned during the next seven days.

Who provides the information? The Police or the local road safety partnership of course. Are they (and the newspaper publisher) therefore just as guilty of obstructing the police in the performance of their duties as our 71 year old?

When is the line crossed between providing information likely to prevent a crime being committed and obstructing a police officer?

This country gets crazier every day.

If you mean an explanation which justifies the decision to prosecute - I don't think there is one.
If this old chap had been caught stealing from a shop, it's highly unlikely he would have been prosecuted.

For some reason, motorists have a much lower chance of being let off with a warning than people accused of relatively minor criminal offences. Although this wasn't a Road Traffic offence, it involved motoring so perhaps he was treated as motorists are.
I've noticed in various 'legal' threads that some people think every offence should be prosecuted, however minor and regardless of the circumstances. That's not my view, and it's not the approach adopted when dealing with minor criminal offences - particularly where the person hasn't previously been convicted of an offence. However, absurd as it may seem, it is the approach adopted when dealing with motorists.

He should have been told to take his sign away and warned that he risked being prosecuted if he was seen doing the same thing in the future.
The final decision whether to prosecute would have been made by a lawyer in the local Crown Prosecution Service. Why he/she considered it was in the public interest to prosecute a 71 year old pensioner who was at worst misguided is beyond me.

Neither the police nor, I concede, the legal system come out of this matter very well.

FL,

Thanks for your guidance. I think that this case could prove interesting if it taken to an appeal court, assuming that option is still available.

sep

No problem - my pleasure.

I think the chances of the disqualification being lifted on appeal are very good, but I'm sorry to say I wouldn't put money on him winning his appeal against conviction.

If this case had been tried in the Crown Court by a Judge and jury, it's highly unlikely he would have been convicted.
However, although his appeal will be heard in the Crown Court, it will be heard by a Judge and two lay magistrates, not by a Judge and jury. The likely result is too close to call.

Just picking up on a quotation from Flying Lawyer:

___________________________________
Unfortunately IMHO it's well-established law here - as the courts have interpreted the offence - that someone who warns drivers they are approaching a speed trap may be guilty of the offence of 'Wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty'.
___________________________________

He is right, of course. The practice of "warning" is as old as motoring in the UK, as is the attendant "offence", but there were also well-established antidotes.

A principal task of the Automobile Association in its early days was to defend motorists from magistrates red in tooth and claw. Unwell knows perfectly well who I have in mind. In those far-off times, the trapping was done by one Plod hiding behind a hedge and waving to his mate a piece down the road, the latter armed with a stop watch. The calculation from known time and known distance was made and the bourgeois motorist suffered as he justly deserved. Quite right, too. Living above his station.

Also in those days, and even in my own, the AA ran patrols to assist the motorist in distress. Perhaps they still do. Those patrols consisted of a neatly-uniformed AA man on a motor-cycle and sidecar combination. The side-car was packed with good things for automotive first-aid.

There were fewer cars then than now. Your AA-member-driver sported an AA badge in the radiator grille of his car. As the AA-member-driven car approached the AA patrol, the eagle-eyed AA man would duly observe the badge and respectfully salute the driver.

But not always. If the AA man had spotted the vexatious Plod at their sordid work, and they were trained spotters, he would refrain from saluting. This apparent discourtesy alerted the AA member to the danger ahead, and he would govern himself accordingly. Saved all that inconvenience and those legal fees.

As the old song had it: "Eeef Oy can help somebodeeee, as I pawss alung, then moy leeving weeel nut be in vain".

Rule of Law came second in the Derby, and fortunately I did it either way. I would like to thank Send Clowns for pointing me towards a £15 profit. When I spend it, as I shall spend it, on drink I shall raise a glass to SC.

Briefly.

FL:

On second thoughts, fancy a bet on the appeal? £15 all right? It's SC's money after all.

From my local paper: The interesting point in this case is that he has appealed, and been informed that the appeal will take 2 years to get to court, by which time he will have completed the ban period, which they are refusing to suspend pending his appeal.

The traffic cop in the above case claims that he is not just looking for speeding vehicles, and he is not checking every vehicle, just "ones he thinks might be speeding" - a strange way to use accurate technology. He also claims he's looking for out-of-date tax discs, and people on the phone whilst driving. Why does he need to hide in the back of a van and use a speed camera to do this?

Surrey Police (my side of the Surrey/Hants border) are much more sensible about how they achieve results. Hampshire Police simply love their cash-machine cameras.

Surrey Police (my side of the Surrey/Hants border) are much more sensible about how they achieve results. Hampshire Police simply love their cash-machine cameras.
Spork , an interesting comment about Surrey Police.. see my post on the "Highway law" thread. My story there involves a Surrey Officer (not a million miles from you)

Chips

in new zealand, they have taken down all the 'warning signs' so speed cameras can be anywhere now Simple. Just look for the one sheep that doesn't move. :ok:

but what if the immobile sheep has Farmer Mackenzie attached to the back end?

Oh it'll be moving allright ;)

I think FL should represent the old guy and process for a speedy appeal just to entertain us and to see this one rightly resolved

I entirely agree that FL is the man to right this wrong.

However....

FL is, I understand, a man of many merits.

Cheapness is not one that I have heard mentioned.

Who will be first with a few bob up front?

You'll wait a long time, Unwell, if my experience is any guide.

On reading hurtful criticisms of lawyers, all of them known to be rapacious, in these pages, I confided long since that I do my immigration work pro bono. This work has enjoyed an element of success. My first appeal victor arrived here a week ago, clutching his "landed immigrant" visa, which he tells me is regarded in ******* as a win in the lottery.

I offered to expand this worthy work at say a third or even a quarter of my commercial "most-favoured nation" rate if one or more of the critics here would ante-up a fund for payment. This would allow all contributors to share in the glow that so far is experienced by me alone. Not a taker. One smiles, as the Victorian lady novelists used to put it, inwardly.

I'll throw in the first $50 as I suggested it

That's very kind of you Mr. Gooney, but I fear that FL may not accept dollars without being investigated for money laundering.

Gentlemen.
Lovely though your thoroughly developed arguaments are, dontcha think you might be missing the point?
If the ONLY purpose of the cameras is to reduce speed (and deaths as we are continually told) then shurely a sign prompting speed reduction can only, if an offence, be frustating revenue collection.
What other harm could he be doing?
As has been pointed out elsewhere the gov/police also post these signs.

The trouble with these damn things is that there is no discretion. ie. speeding at 40 thru a '30' at 0850 near a school is reckless mon-fri. But what about Sunday morn or at 0200. bearing in mind that said school is on an urban dual cariageway?

IMHO we're far too supine . The Frogs (bless 'em) burn the cameras. It's got so bad that nowadays the frog police have to put other cameras to CCTV the gatso's lest they brew up.

To sum up. Put them at accident blackspots or at locations of clear risk (only working at the risky time).

Meantime, until they show sense. burn them all!

(i hear that one tyre filled with petrol will do the trick)

U_R

I can't deny your generalisation is generally correct - market forces etc ;) - but there is a difference in fees between airlines/commercial operators and impecunious pilots who can't afford to pay the market rate.

I do a lot of work for nothing. It's usually for pilots, but I'd happily do this pensioner's appeal for nothing if I was asked and was available on the day.

I couldn't guarantee to win - you're in far a better position than me to guess what the lay magistrates' approach will be and, as you know, two lay magistrates can outvote the Judge.

Had the gent posted a sign saying "slow down! car boot sale concealed entrance" would he have been treated in the same way?.

It does smack somewhat of the Police having their noses put out of joint in his preventing motorists driving too fast.The impression sent out is they'd rather you committed the offence and then got caught in their camera thereby swelling the coffers and adding a few "results" to the coppers record thus reducing the requirement for some good old fashioned policing dealing with vandals and the less desirable fraternity for their activities.

I would have thought a caution, an explanation of what he was doing was illegal based on his wording and left it at that. This overzealous attitude is to be expected of the performance related Police as well as many other insignificant jobsworths ( traffic wardens)whose prime role isnt traffic management but raising revenue.

What next, the local constabulary suing him for "loss of speeding earnings"

This was known to be a dangerous location or there would not have been a camera there. We also know that a sign warning of the camera caused motorists to slow down (otherwise there would have been no basis for the 'obstruction' prosecution) thus removing or at least reducing the danger (the danger must have been speed-related to justify the presence of a camera).

What if someone had been killed or injured at this location while the police were using their camera clandestinely ?

Since the danger - and a means of preventing it - were known in advance, would the police not be guilty of negligence or at least, through inaction, partly responsible for the death ?