[DaveinGermany]

How can he be done for obstructing an officer ? If as they say the Cameras & other tools Plod uses are to prevent accidents & make people slow down (as opposed to the strongly held public belief that they're actually about making money)then surely Mr.Thompson was assisting & not obstructing ?

Similar cases have cropped up elsewhere & have been thrown out. It appears the Police don't like to be pulled up when they do wrong so will apply some general purpose law to get their way as has also been proven on various occasions in regard to various other "offences".

Here an example :-


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.

Here in Germany the local radio broadcasts with Police encouragement where speed traps are to be sited, people ring in & report them to the DJ's who then relay it to all & sundry. I can even pick up a"Blitzscheine" (piece of paper with mobile Camera locations) listed for the following week in & around my area ! That is all prevention as far as I'm concerned & if I get caught out after all that well it's my own fault. Incidentally I also warn others by flashing my headlights.