hedgehog

Thank goodness for the Law Lords, though it is a pity so much of my money had to be spent on what might have appeared to be a simple case.

Lords back lorry driver who warned of speed trap

LONDON (Reuters) - A lorry driver prosecuted for obstructing police by alerting motorists to a speed trap won the backing of three law lords in a test case on Monday when they ruled in his favour.
Trucker Charles Glendinning was convicted last year by magistrates in Somerset of wilful obstruction after police said he waved a warning to other road-users about a speed trap on the A303 at Tinkers Hill, Stoke Trister.
Although the decision was overturned at Taunton Crown Court the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) took the case to the High Court, which in turn also backed Glendinning.
Now three law lords, headed by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, have again ruled in Glendinning's favour and have refused the DPP permission to appeal.
When the High Court considered the case in February, Mr Justice Owen said there was no evidence that any of the motorists warned by Glendinning had been breaking the speed limit or were about to do so.
Owen added that some people might think the police ought to appreciate the efforts of others to prevent speeding.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=691532006

boomer

Hedgehog,

...now you can't have typed all that in three minutes (from here), so that is very spooky )

Oh, and very good news as well

mb

r32

I presume that means we can all warn others now without fear of prosecution?

unclebuck

I wonder how 'felix.' would go about defending this kind of wastage of public resources.

Paul3446

I always flash other drivers if I think a speed trap is in an unfair location, what about other people, do you do the same?

hedgehog

I think the key point to be aware of is that in the previous decision it was all centred around the ruling by Justice Owen that there was no evidence that any of the drivers warned were breaking or were about to break the speed limit.

There is potential for the partnerships to set up two speed traps and have one of them determine if approaching vehicles are breaking the speed limit when warned by other motorists. In such a case then I suspect the court would still return a guilty verdict, though I haven't seen the text of the Lords ruling yet to see if they also considered this an important point.

I know that police have been setting up similar "multi-traps" in order to get motorists who were warning others of a very visible trap so it is possible they will just extend this to also record the speed of the warned drivers. If it was just about safety and reducing speed was the aim then, as Justice Owen, pointed out there would be no need for such behaviour.

Some questions remain over why the DPP see this as such an important part and it is possible that close examination and consideration of the ruling will open other avenues of defence for the motorist.

Leslie

Hooray for the Law Lords then.

Les

brumdaisy

Too ruddy right

But how on earth did this ever come to be a court case? Surely all the lorry driver did was act as a human speed camera sign, sorry 'safety' camera

hedgehog

This was the essence of the ruling that Justice Owen made in which he basically stated that the whole point of cameras was to slow people down and if other motorists were performing this role then how was this a problem.

This was not how the DPP viewed the matter however, for some reason they are getting, or being asked to get, most excited about it. It will be interesting to see if we find out the reason behind all the excitement.

Lum

Full text of the judgement here

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...ing&method=all

Looks like there is case law dating as far back as 1907 to say that the lorry driver has not commited an offence. The judge summarises the 1907 case as follows:

Edit: But if the drivers were speeding at the time you warn them, then you are liable, as proven in a 1910 case against an AA patrolman. The difference was the police already knew they were speeding, but needed the speed trap for evidence.

boomer

Surely you would only commit an offence if, when you warned a speeding driver, you were knowingly aware that they were speeding at the time?

If you were walking down the street, and the police had set up a pedestrian check-point - you decide to turn back (perfectly legally) due to the probably delay that it would all cause. If you then bumped into a mate, you would probably say "you don't wanna go down there mate, it'll take half an hour to get through the checks, what with all the queues and that".

Now if your mate had (unbeknown to you) half a kilo of heroin stashed under his jacket, they can't nick you for aiding and abetting can they???

So, unless you also have a speed gun, they can't nick you for warning a known speeder!!!

mb