Crosswords1 min ago
Speed Gun Warning
A man in Grimsby has been prosecuted for flashing his headlights at other drivers to warn them of a police speed trap.
The man believes it is his civic duty to warn others of the speed trap. The police believe he was obstructing the police officers from doing their duty.
Source: BBC News
The man believes it is his civic duty to warn others of the speed trap. The police believe he was obstructing the police officers from doing their duty.
Source: BBC News
This poll is closed.
Do you believe he was doing his civic duty, or stopping the police officers from doing their job?
- He was doing his civic duty - 26 votes
- 72%
- He was stopping the police doing their job - 10 votes
- 28%
Stats until: 15:00 Tue 31st Dec 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I get the headlines from the Grimsby Telegraph emailed every day as I used to live there.
This man (Mr Johnson I think) became very verbal and abusive when the police stopped him. He said one of the officers told him they were only going to have a word with him but since he became abusive they were going to give him a ticket. It all snowballed from there. He got a £440 fine in the end.
This man (Mr Johnson I think) became very verbal and abusive when the police stopped him. He said one of the officers told him they were only going to have a word with him but since he became abusive they were going to give him a ticket. It all snowballed from there. He got a £440 fine in the end.
-- answer removed --
I also posted this in response to a question by R1Geezer:
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 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.
