hedgehog

Some may recall that a while back I posted on a court judgement where a motorist who warned of a police speed trap by flashing his lights was found innocent of obstructing police through his actions. In that case the court ruled that the police would have to prove that the warned motorists were exceeding the speed limit at the time they were warned.

It looked like that case would set precedent and in another recent case a lorry driver was also shown, in the High Court, to be innocent on similar grounds. However, despite refusing the CPS permission to appeal the acquittal the two judges have referred the following question to the House of Lords for consideration:

"For there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty by the giving of a warning of the presence of a speed trap, is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were themselves exceeding the speed limit, or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap?"

The lorry driver involved was initially convicted in the magistrates courts, as usual, and so had to appeal but had he of read my previous post on SN he may have been able to avoid conviction in the lower court by presenting the precedent that was set. It will be interesting to see how the Law Lords rule on the above question. My current understanding, though you would have to take advice on the matter should you find yourself in this situation, is that the current precedent will stand until the Law Lords make their ruling.