• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

Police speed gun warning prosecution: what do you think?

Scam120 The BBC carries a report this morning about a gentleman in Grimsby who has been convicted of obstructing a police officer in the course of their duties for flashing his headlights to alert motorists to the presence of a mobile police speed gun.

Commenting on the case, the man in question Michael Thompson said:

"I was very surprised when I was pulled over by the Police.

"I explained I was doing my civic duty and the court found me guilty and I now have a criminal record."

"I believe that speed traps cause vehicles to brake harshly at times.

"I stand by what I did. What I did was right and lawful. "I believe it is a total waste of police time. The court time is now at a premium and this case took the best part of a day. It is a total waste of public money."

What do you think?  Was Thompson attempting to block the Police in the conduct of their duties or is he simply an innocent man doing his civic duty who has been who has come up against an overbearing state?

Posted on January 5, 2011 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Home
  • HugoRune

    It depends what speed cameras are intended to do. If they are intended make the roads safer by persuading people to drive within the speed limit then Mr. Thompson was heling the police because he was also trying to persuade people to stay below the limit. If they are intended to raise revenue though he was obstructing the police.
    So is the purpose of speed cameras to increase safety or raise revenue through fines?

  • john

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/grimsby
    Bit of a typo there guys :) should of said speed not stun gun.
    But what the guy did i think was ok! i have done the same many times.
    prevention of rip-off by the state so respect for this guy

  • http://englandexpects.blogspot.com Gawain Towler

    FYI
    Euro MP Godfrey Bloom is to contribute £200 for an appeal by Michael Thompson, the Grimsby motorist fined for warning other drivers about a police speed trap.
    “It is my understanding there is a judicial precedent here and a previous case heard for the same offence and dismissed.
    “The purpose of speed cameras is to catch speeding motorists not to raise revenue and all the driver was doing was warning motorists to slow down, the same role as official notices warning of speed cameras.
    “This is a travesty of justice and I will personally contribute £200 to an appeal and I suggest other sympathisers do likewise,” said Mr Bloom, UKIP MEP for Yorkshire & North Lincolnshire.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/dcoplin Dcoplin

    I think Hugo has nailed the issue here. The point of speed cameras is _not_ to catch speeding motorists, but to _deter_ people from speeding. Mr Thompson’s actions are intended to have the same effect therefore I can’t really understand this outcome. If I were Mr Thompson, I would also look to the Institute of Advanced Motorists for insight and guidance (and potentially join the lobbying).

  • http://profile.typepad.com/lossofprivacy LossofPrivacy

    I used to do this all the time as a courtesy, but several states have made it illegal to do so. I have traveled a lot around America so I stopped because I couldn’t remember where it was legal and where it was not.
    I now live in the middle of nowhere America and, on the occasion that I see a police trap I warn oncoming motorists. It is solely a revenue generator here as the police vehicles rarely leave the driveways of the officers’ homes. When they do, they’re usually trying to make a bit of money.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlight_flashing

  • SJones

    I cannot understand how the officer was supposedly obstructed. He / she was using his / her camera to obtain evidence of speeding in line of sight of the camera. (Evidence of speeding has to be corroborated, hence the need for a camera including radar readings or on the word of two police officers.) That officer cannot be obstructed in obtaining this evidence if drivers in line of sight are not speeding whatever the reason. This man was surely wrongly convicted and police / public relations have again been damaged.

  • http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org Ken

    He should of claimed to be an immigrant with religious differences, he possibly might of got away with a new identity and housing.
    Just goes to show how corrupt our CPS really is. If somebody cares to start up a donation area for this i for one would contribute towards seeing this guy is acquitted.

  • http://graspthemettle.blogspot.com/ Paul Coombes

    Like Dcoplin, I think HugoRune has it. Others also agree that the only reason Michael Thompson could be considered to have been obstructing a police officer in the course of their duties is if the intention is to raise revenue.

  • S Jones

    Having now researched this area a little more, it seems case law indicates that Michael Thompson was almost certainly wrongly convicted:
    DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v GLENDINNING (2005)
    DC (Scott Baker LJ, Owen J) 13/10/2005
    CRIMINAL LAW – POLICE – ROAD TRAFFIC
    OBSTRUCTION OF POLICE : SPEEDING : WARNING MOTORISTS OF SPEED TRAPS : WARNING DRIVERS : ACTUS REUS OF OFFENCE
    Where an individual gave a warning to motorists of the presence of a police speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap for the individual to commit an offence of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty.
    The appellant appealed by way of case stated against a decision of the Crown court that the respondent (G) had no case to answer to a charge of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. Police constables had established a speed trap on a lay-by of a dual carriageway. The constables observed G making a slow-down signal with his hand to drivers behind him. G was subsequently convicted in the magistrates’ court of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. G successfully appealed his conviction to the Crown court, which held that the video evidence showed that none of the drivers were travelling in excess of the speed limit and that they had not reacted to G’s signals by slowing down. Accordingly the Crown court held that G had no case to answer. The issue was whether, for there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty by warning others of the presence of a speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap.
    HELD: The actus reus of the offence could only be established where the prosecuting authority proved that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap. On the facts of the instant case it was clear that there was no actual obstruction by G, Bastable v Little (1907) 1 KB 59, Betts v Stevens (1910) 1 KB 1, Green v Moore (1982) 126 SJ 79 considered.
    Appeal dismissed.

  • David C

    The whole issue of speeding tickets in the UK is legally sanctioned extortion by the government. Drive at 35 mph in a 30 zone, and either pay the fine, or take the chance of getting a criminal conviction. Should we really be saying that you are a criminal, with all that implies in terms of employment, emigration, insurance etc to people who drive at 5 mph over the speed limit? It is nothing less than demanding money with menaces.

  • N Bullough

    If it is wrong to give other motorists a warning of a speed camera, why are the fixed cameras coloured yellow to give motorists a warning of their presence.

  • http://sbml.wordpress.com SadButMadLad

    If the guy doesn’t appeal and win then it pretty much proves that speed camera traps are revenue raising and not safety related at all. If it there was the tiniest bit of safety in the use of speed cameras then the police should have praised Mr Thompson for encouraging other drivers to slow down.
    Whatever the case, the easiest way round it is to not flash your headlights (yes, I know he used his hands this case) but to turn them off or dip them temporarily from full beam.

  • Purlieu

    Ok then, how could the police at the speed trap see him flashing his headlights when he was driving AWAY from the trap ?

  • Mozza

    I’ve put on my hazard lights to tell someone who was too close to me to back off and have flashed a car that was speeding (no cameras or speed vans around then) to let him know he was driving dangerously (he nearly hit me). I fail to see how drawing a drivers attention to the fact that he might be driving too fast is an offence.
    If I see two people about to commit a crime and ask them to stop, am I commiting an offence? It is clear that what Mr. Thompson was doing was warning the drivers that they were going to fast. I’ve warned lots of people about or in the process of committing crimes many times and have never been threatened with arrest and prosecution by the police (in fact one police officer praised my public spirit!)
    The purpose of the law regarding hindering a police officer was for someone physically stopping a police officer or preventing him/her from catching an offender in the act of doing so not to prevent people from telling others not to commit a crime!

  • mrmovie

    Mozza, you raise an interesting point. I was watching a coppers with cameras program not so long ago. Two police sitting in cop car, have been radio’d that a man acting ‘drunk’ may be about to get in his car and drive. they see said man walking to his car…copper1 says ‘right, lets wait until he gets in his car, drives off, then we can pull him over and nick him for drunk driving’….yeah, brilliant idea, let him drive off drunk and knock over some 5 year old crossing the street!!! i was shouting at the TV. the police force has no clue about ‘crime prevention’, im sure because you cant measure it as a KPI. I have lost all respect for the police.

  • Slacker

    > Ok then, how could the police at the speed trap see him flashing his headlights when he was driving AWAY from the trap ?
    He probably flashed as soon as he saw the speed trap. I make sure I’m well past any plods before warning others to avoid just such unpleasantness at the hands of our truncheon and Tazer-wielding cops.

  • http://alastairs-place.net alastair

    It clearly isn’t obstructing a police officer in any case. The police officer’s duty is to operate the speed trap (since that is what they have been told to do by their superiors), and warning someone is not obstructing that duty in any way, shape or form.
    Importantly, it is *not* the police officer’s duty to catch everyone who might *possibly* speed at the site of the speed trap, and further, even if a speeding driver has been warned, there is no way to know whether that driver would have slowed anyway prior to the speed trap.
    It’s a totally ludicrous judgement and the only explanation is that this guy had either an awful barrister or an incompetent judge.

  • Criminal-in-Waiting

    Who cares what his motive was? Our beloved police state that speed cameras are there to deter and not to raise revenue. We all knew this was a lie and they ,the CPS and the idiotic magistrate have proved it. I wouldn’t trust today’s plod to give me the right time.

  • http://www.taobaoseeker.com Online taobao

    the day you went away

  • http://www.coach-bags.cc/ Coach Purses

    Too many people live too much in the past. The past must be a springboard, not a sofa.

  • http://www.gadgettown.com/Stun-Guns/ Flashlight Stun Guns

    “It is nothing less than demanding money with menaces.” What is the world we were live?

  • http://www.gadgettown.com/Stun-Guns/ Stun Guns

    So, the police urged owners are in their vocational, cannot use hand rights to seek personal gain. Hope negative news will be less and less.