Further to AOG's thread below, Clarification please.....

[R1Geezer]

Ok the guy who was prosecuted for obstructing the police, under act Z secton X subsecton Y. Anyway, obstruction means getting in the way, surely, so how is crime prevention via warning obstructing the police? Does this only apply in motoring situations? For example Would I be similarly prosecuted if I rugby tackled a yob just as he was about to punch a policeman, ie preventing the crime and hence denying the potential for an assaulting a police oficer charge? Or what if told some burglars about to enter a house that the police where on the way and they escaped, would I be guilty of "obstructing" the police? This seems more like a "he spoilt our game so nick him" act to me.

[rojash]

A more pertinent question might be "If the barman confiscates your keys to prevent you from driving while drunk, is he doing you and other road users a favour, or is he obstructing the police?"
After the present case it would seem that preventing a crime is the same as preventing the police from nicking a criminal, and thus is construed as obstructing them.

[jake-the-peg]

I think they used it to show leniency when he could quite easily have been prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.


Like the Avatar rojash!

[flip_flop]

Great points Geezer.

I have always warned oncoming motorists of speed traps and will continue to do so. Not to tell them to slow down, as I couldn't possibly know how fast they are travelling, but just simply because I feel it is the right thing to do.

This was a completely unnecessary prosecution. It does demonstrate that it is pointless trying to argue the toss at the roadside with the rank and file as there are large numbers of coppers who are pi s sed on their power.

[jake-the-peg]

So flip flop

Would you go into a pub and warn people if you saw the police was about to raid it?

Would that be the right thing to do?

[flip_flop]

No, of course not. If the police were about to raid a pub they would be doing so for a very good reason.

This is completely different to sitting at the side of a road waiting to catch a motorist straying over the limit.

[jake-the-peg]

So basically you are picking and chosing which laws you have decided to respect?

[woofgang]

the big argument used about speed traps is that it slows down motorists....so what is wrong with warning drivers, which also slows them down?

[TTG]

Maybe if the drivers had been caught it might have woken them up to the idea that speeding is wrong. Being flashed and warned beforehand ensures they drive on with the idea speeding is no big deal.

[jake-the-peg]

That's also done woofgang - not noticed the flashing speed activated signs.

Some people only take notice when they get a ticket though.

But this is not about speeding it's about interfering with a police operation.

Whether that's a speed trap or a raid on drug dealing in a pub is irrelevant

[flip_flop]

Or it could make them realise that they were almost caught thus ensuring they drive within the limit in the future!

[flip_flop]

It is relevent Jake.

A pub raid has probably been ordered because it is suspected that crimes are being undertaken on the premises - drugs, underage boozing, illegal boxing, whatever - this is completely different to a policeman waiting at the side of a road to nick a motorist.

[Sqad]

I agree with JTP....it is the law............so obey it.

To me, the problem is the attitude of the driver to being stopped. Now putting myself in the position of the policeman who had just pulled over a motorist and was about to warn him and then got a "load of lip" from him, then sure, I would have given him a ticket.
Similarly if I was a policeman and was given a "load of lip" from a scruffy, unshaven fowl mouthed youth.........he would have got more than a warning, but a not so gentle tap on the head.

The "Brits" are not very good at "doing what they are told"...in my opinion.

[Sqad]

OK..."foul mouthed"----;-)

[Paul22118]

Speed sold in a pub can kill.

Speed on the road can kill.

Discuss

[New Judge]

I’ve been following these threads with some interest, Geezer.

I took the view that as the first duty of a police officer is to prevent crime, Mr Thompson’s action was assisting the police in that duty and therefore the prosecution was wrong. However, having read the details of an appeal in the High Court which barmaid kindly provided:

http://www.bailii.org.../Admin/2005/2333.html

I’ve had a change of heart.

Their Lordships in their wisdom determined that there was a finer point of law involved. To save you trawling through the whole case notes, in summary they decided that the issue is what else had occurred which the defendant’s action may have influenced. They decided that if a crime (i.e. speeding) had already been committed or was about to be committed a police officer would have a duty to take action to detect or prevent that crime. Anybody interfering with this duty (i.e. obstructing) is guilty of an offence. However, if no offence was committed or about to be committed there could be no obstruction.

The Magistrates obviously took the view that Mr. Thompson was warning drivers who either were speeding or were possibly going to speed that they would be apprehended by the speed trap and so they decided he had obstructed the police.

The appeal case addresses a fine point and I can understand their Lordships findings with regard to drivers who were already speeding, but cannot quite agree with the decision with regard to those who were about to speed. They may have slowed down if they saw the speed trap themselves or if they saw Mr Thompson’s warning. Either way a crime has been prevented and Mr. Thompson assisted the police in that duty.

I believe there is to be an appeal and I would be interested

[Scylax]

If there is any justice at all, the appeal must exonerate Mr Thompson. Anyone who warns anyone else of an oncoming hazard should be applauded. Otherwise it would be very difficult to appreciate the assertion that speed-cameras are never used for income generation.

To my mind, 'obstruction' is a reactive offence, not proactive. This may thwart the police from exercising their power, but good citizenship, and commonsense, requires us all to prevent crime, if we can.

[McMouse]

This topic was discussed on the radio yesterday and a police officer said apart from obstructing the police the guy was also infringing the highway code which says that you should not flash headlights as a signal to other road users. It put me in mind of the number of times I have flashed my lights at night when seeing a motorist exiting a car park without their lights on. Was I potentially helping to prevent a head on collision with another motorist or pedestrian, or obstructing a police officer who might have nicked him for not having his lights on. Funny old world.

[dianahoohar]

I was waiting for on-coming traffic passing parked cars in a narrow road, and a police car flashed me to let me through. Should I have made a citizen's arrest?