hedgehog

As some are aware police are not keen on your flashing your lights to warn other motorists of speed traps and they have been "doing" people for this. In many cases they have just been handing out some sort of fixed penalty but motorists who stand up to this are threatened with obstructing and some have been charged.

However a recent ruling at appeal has found that there is no basis for this charge unless it can be shown that the motorist who was warned was exceeding the speed limit or was likely to do so at the speed trap.

As this was decided on appeal it will set case law and be binding in all lower courts. The details, for anyone in this position, are as follows:

Law Report

DPP v Glendinning

Divisional Court

Scott Baker LJ, Owen J
Oct 13 2005

Prosecution fails of motorist who warned others of a speed trap

The DPP appealed against a Crown Court decision that a motorist who warned others of the presence of a speed trap had no case to answer to a charge of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. Dismissing the appeal the court held that for the offence to be committed, the prosecution must prove that those warned were either exceeding the speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap.

Brendan Hughes

Excellent - so now the police have to set up a speed trap before the speed trap

Edit - you missed an important sentence. "G successfully appealed his conviction to the Crown Court, which held that the video evidence showed that none of the drivers were travelling in excess of the speed limit and that they had not reacted to G's signals by slowing down."

They had video evidence to prove no driver had reacted?? Where does that pop up from? Police camera?

So basically, if the police can prove a driver reacted, you're still committing an offence.

Moral being - it's OK to warn people as long as they don't listen

hedgehog

The docs I got didn't have that line Brendan. However as the court of appeal seems to have stated that it was necessary for those warned to have been exceeding the limit at the time they were warned it seems unlikely that evidence of them slowing down would be sufficient to prove this.

As you rightly say, however, we are likely to see speed traps set up with the sole purpose of seeing if motorists slowed down when warned. A chap i work with was caught in an "ambush" up the road from a speed trap. The police were hiding behind a hedge watching for motorists flashing their lights and were doing them for £30 or threatening court for obstructing. I think this ruling gives you pretty good grounds to tell them to bog off under such circumstances. All those police resources committed to catching motorists flashing their lights when crime clear up figures for serious crime in the area were all in single figure percentages with some of the more common such as robbery being in and around 2 - 3%. Says it all really.

Brendan Hughes

I got it from the Telegraph report.

However, there's a difference between "video evidence showed that motorists didn't react..." and "the prosecution must prove that those warned were either exceeding the speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap." So I would like to see which is legally stronger in the reasoning of the case. If the prosecution must prove, then video evidence isn't enough, they'll need a calibrated speed camera (unless they set up the video with a clear view of approaching cars passing, say, two lamp-posts...)

hedgehog

Yes, I am guessing that because the item i posted was from the Law Report that it is likely to more closely reflect the nature of the judgement and how it will be applied in the courts than a report in the press, though they may be quoting from the full text of the judgement. However, life is not always so simple. Either way this is probably a useful judgement for the motorist. You may recall that some time back a pensioner had his license removed because he stood at the side of the road with a sign indicating that there was a speed trap ahead. This was clearly a crazy application of the law that allows your license to be removed for nearly any crime but at least now he would have a fairly good defence unless it could be shown that the motorists he was warning were exceeding the posted limit.

Certainly an interesting ruling, all we need now is to set precedent on the problems with the laser speed gun and that would be a major victory. On top of that Idris Francis should get his ECHR judgement in the first half of next year and some legal experts have asserted that because of previous judgements Europe has already found in his favour. That should destroy most of the fabric of automated speed enforcement and, hopefully, we can get back to decent traffic policing with police officers who are actually trained for the job as they used to be.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Couldn't agree more!!! Another well thought out, and well worded post, Hedgehog.

Alcazar

pslewis

If speed cameras are there as a deterrent .... then, surely, you could argue that by flashing you were deterring them from speeding and therefore due a medal??

Pete

ben44

OMG, I agree with him.

<looks for the nearest Gallows bracket>

Leslie

Not if NL dont get the money that they feel they feel they have the absolute right to rip off from the motorists in this country!

As Hedgehog says, we need to prove that the laser gun evidence is unsound and get all that money returned to the motorists who have been prosecuted with laser evidence as well as proving that radar speedcams are also unsafe for the job, and get proper traffic police on the job as we always used to have and who can catch the real criminal drivers.

Les

OllyK

The very first word of your post is the key one. If speed cameras / traps were there to act as a deterrant then you would be correct. This just goes to prove that speed cameras / traps have nothing to do with deterrant or road safety and everything to do revenue generation.

Nick

Good info Hedgehog - thanks for the heads-up.