Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Why no 'Obstruct Police'?

All matters involving criminal law

Re: Why no 'Obstruct Police'?

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:23 pm

I had assumed that that was what dls referred to earlier.
Little bit harder to catch and prove than the case in OP though.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9315
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Why no 'Obstruct Police'?

Postby shootist » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:32 pm

IIRC, and I'm very much going from memory here, Those drivers who flash their headlights at an oncoming speeding driver to warn them of a speed trap ahead will, if caught, be risking prosecution. Those drivers who merely flash their headlights at every approaching vehicle, regardless of it's speed, to warn them that there may be an unexpected hazard ahead are not committing offences. To put it another way, those drivers who admit anything when interviewed by the police will be nailed, those who remain silent usually won't.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Why no 'Obstruct Police'?

Postby diy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:58 pm

Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Glendinning, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 13, 2005, [2005] EWHC 2333. says flashing headlights isn't obstructing police as you 1 have to prove they were speeding and 2 took note/action based on the warning.

Given most of the press articles suggest fixed penalties, i'm concluding they are using construction and use legislation. Though they could go for inconsiderate driving. easy defence of warning about a potential hazard.

I think the police propaganda machine likes to put the scare out so that urban myth says you'll get nicked
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Why no 'Obstruct Police'?

Postby atticus » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:15 pm

I'm sure I saw news reports of a conviction a few years ago, but later than 2005. It may even have been discussed here.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18638
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Why no 'Obstruct Police'?

Postby shootist » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:21 pm

diy wrote:I think the police propaganda machine likes to put the scare out so that urban myth says you'll get nicked


I don't see why not if they put out this sort of crap.

Police Inspector Harry Simpson feels those who have hailed Chris as a hero are those who don’t consider speeding a serious offence.
“It is an unpleasant sight to come across the severed limbs of victims and then take on the task of informing families of these victims that their loved one is in a serious condition in hospital – or even worse,” said Inspector Simpson.
“Those who do not agree with speed enforcement will no doubt speed themselves.”


The worst crash I ever dealt with, 4 dead, 1 seriously injured, occurred with the vehicle entirely inside the speed limit but driving too fast to take the bend. The driver was also pissed. But he wasn't anywhere nearing the speed limit for that road, 60mph. Until driving a car is no longer accepted as some sort of God given right, until driving instruction and the test is given at least to IAM standards, and until drivers as prosecuted, and banned for 'bad' driving immediately, then road deaths are unlikely to be reduced much further, especially by this false front self justifying bullshit from the police.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Why no 'Obstruct Police'?

Postby diy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:36 pm

speeding is a symptom not a cause. I suspect there is sufficient evidence to prosecute for obstruction if the scammers were working correctly and using the camera as secondary evidence. The fact that nobody questioned him suggests that someone was asleep?
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Why no 'Obstruct Police'?

Postby dls » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:09 pm

Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application Of) v Glendinning: Admn 13 Oct 2005
References: [2005] EWHC 2333 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Scott Baker LJ, Owen J
Ratio: The defendant had been accused of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty by warning motorists of presence of police speed trap. The prosecutor appealed dismissal of the charge.
Held: 'the hand signals given by the respondent were intended to warn motorists approaching from behind to reduce their speed because of the presence ahead of a police trap, but that there was no evidence that any such drivers were either driving in excess of the speed limit or were likely to do so. Hence, the Crown Court judge's conclusion that the situation was analogous to that which would obtain if there was no other traffic in the vicinity.' Applying the tests in Rice v Connolly, there was no evidence that any of the motorists were speeding or were likely to be speeding. The appeal was dismissed
This case cites:
    - Cited - Bastable v Little ([1907] 1 KB 59)
    The police had set up a series of speed traps in London Road, Croydon. Mr Little occupied himself giving warning signals to drivers approaching the traps, thus ensuring that they did not exceed the speed limit. There was no evidence that the drivers . .
    - Cited - Betts v Stevens ([1910] 1 KB 1, 26 TLR 5)
    The defendant, an Automobile Association patrolman was accused of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. The police had set a speed trap, and the defendant had warned approaching vehicles of the trap. At the time they were . .
    - Cited - Green v Moore ([1982] 1 All ER 428)
    The respondent, a probationer police constable was convicted for obstructing police officers in the execution of their duty under s51(3) of the 1964 Act. He was a regular in a bar he knew was to be raided. He warned the landlord who complied with . .
    - Cited - Rice v Connolly ([1966] 2 QB 414, [1966] 3 WLR 17)
    At common law there is no legal duty to provide the police with information or otherwise to assist them with their inquiries. Lord Parker set out three questions to be answered when asking whether there had been an obstruction of an officer in the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by: (This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales


See also: http://swarb.co.uk/director-of-public-p ... -oct-2005/
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11786
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Previous

Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest