Re: Driver fined over £400

Very well put.

Shame the local beak did not no the law proply.

Re: Driver fined over £400

Ah but, ah but, ah but (as she says in Little Britain)
I think it may have something to do with "intention". The flashing driver intended to warn anyone who might have been speeding and that is what I would think the police considered as obstruction, which is an offence. I don't know what he went on to say to the policewoman, but also if he showed no contrition and argued his case, this would have added to his problems.
I admit it all seems very petty and police are not always as tolerant as they might be. Who knows she might have been having a bad hair day

Re: Driver fined over £400

Its not a question of MIGHT.

To convict... the police have to prove that the person warned WAS speeding.

Re: Driver fined over £400

Oh dear - This is getting a bit messy now - It was the flashing driver that was fined (not anyone else). The intent was on the part of the flashing driver, warning people, whether they were speeding or not is not relevant to his offence. Nobody was fined for speeding - the flashing man was the one fined for obstruction.

Re: Driver fined over £400

I no it was the flashing driver that was fined.


Its down to the police to PROVE that anyone the Flashing driver warned WAS SPEEDING at the time AND would have passed the police detectors SPEEDING.

High Court ruling on a simalar case.


Quote

MR JUSTICE OWEN: This is an appeal by way of Case Stated against a decision of the Crown Court at Taunton sitting on appeal from the South Somerset Magistrates' Court. The respondent to this appeal, the defendant below, is a lorry driver who appealed to the Crown Court at Taunton against his conviction at South Somerset Magistrates' Court for obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty by warning other motorists of the presence of a police speed trap on the A303 at Tinkers Hill, Stoke Trister, Somerset on 13th June 2004. On the hearing of the appeal, the Crown Court acceded to the submission made at the conclusion of the prosecution case that there was no case for the respondent to answer on the ground that there was no evidence that any motorist in the vicinity at whom any warning might have been directed, was committing, or was likely to commit, a speeding offence.

Re: Driver fined over £400

If you saw the police staking out the house of a neighbour they supected of drug dealing, would you go and warn the neighbour?

The speed limit is pretty clear. Why break it? Give us pedestrians a chance please.

Re: Driver fined over £400

I think the appellant given as an example was lucky on appeal. In my view it is quite clear. To make things a bit clearer, I quote :-

Obstructing a police officer Police Act 1996 Section 89(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.

The offence of obstructing a police officer is committed when a person:- wilfully obstructs
a constable in the execution of his duty, or
a person assisting a constable in the execution of the constable's duty.
A person obstructs a constable if he prevents him from carrying out his duties or makes it more difficult for him to do so. The obstruction must be 'wilful', meaning the accused must act (or refuse to act) deliberately, knowing and intending his act will obstruct the constable: (Lunt v DPP [1993] Crim.L.R.534). The motive for the act is irrelevant. Webster J said in Lewis v Cox [1985] QB 509, 517 in the context of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty:

" … a court is not obliged … to assume that a defendant has only one intention and to find what that intention was, or even to assume that, if he has two intentions, it must find the predominant intention. If, for instance, a person runs into the road and holds up the traffic in order to prevent an accident, he clearly has two intentions: one is to hold up the traffic, and the other (which is the motive of that intention) is to prevent an accident. But motive is irrelevant to intention in the criminal law …"
Many instances of obstruction relate to a physical and violent obstruction of an officer in, for example, a public order or arrest situation. This standard only deals with conduct which can amount to an obstruction in the context of an interference with public justice. Examples of the type of conduct which may constitute the offence of obstructing a police officer include:-
Warning a landlord that the police are to investigate after hours drinking;
warning that a police search of premises is to occur;
giving a warning to other motorists of a police speed trap ahead;
a motorist or 'shoplifter' who persists in giving a false name and address;
a witness giving a false name and address;
a partner who falsely claiming that he/she was driving at the time of the accident but relenting before the breathalyser procedure is frustrated;
an occupier inhibiting the proper execution of a search warrant (if the warrant has been issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act, see also section 23 of that Act);
refusing to admit constables into a house when there is a right of entry under section4(7) of the road Traffic Act 1988 (arrest for driving etc while unfit through drink or drugs).

Re: Driver fined over £400

If flashing his lights had the effect of slowing down the oncoming drivers, then surely that's the result they're looking for. In my opinion this was an over-reaction by the policewoman who was probably suffering from a dose of PMS. A bit of common sense wouldn't go amiss on occasion and I think we all know that even our great police force has a few jobsworths in it. Having said that, I have to admit its never a good idea to smart mouth the police which this man apparently did.

On the subject of common sense, I thought I'd share this little gem with you...........

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend,

Mr. Common Sense.

Sense had been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons such as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm and that life isn't always fair. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not kids, are in charge).

His health began to rapidly deteriorate when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Mr. Sense declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student; but, could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Finally, Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot, she spilled a bit in her lap, and was awarded a huge financial settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.

He is survived by two stepbrothers; My Rights and Ima Whiner.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

Re: Driver fined over £400

I like that Mazzie - adds a bit of perspective.

Re: Driver fined over £400

Yes, I suppose this is all getting a bit tedious. As I mentioned I have in the past told people in my office about seeing a radar trap and warned them to go a different way or be careful. Technically I suppose I was commiting an 'obstructionn' offence every time I did so

Good point, Emilly my lovely sat nav lady always tells me when I'm in what she calls a 'traffic safety camera zone' so warning other drivers is no longer necessary