As if further proof was needed that the current Government/Police's strategy on making money (and misery) out of the average road user was needed, it now seems that that whilst the Police tout their mantra of speeding kills, and that they set up speed-traps at accident hot-spots to try and prevent further accidents, it's now illegal for citizens to warn others that a speed-trap lay ahead.
Who exactly makes up these contradictory strategies and laws? Are the Government/Police actually interested in lowering the number of accidents on the roads, or are they actually only trying to implement a tax cash-cow for the Government? Is the public faith in the authorities being undermined?
The House of Lords is to be asked to give a final ruling in the case of a lorry driver who waved from his cab window to warn motorists behind him that they were approaching a police speed trap. The High Court recently ruled that he was not guilty of obstructing officers in the execution of their duty.
Two judges held that, because there was no evidence that Charles Glendinning's "slow down" signal was seen by any motorists who were speeding at the time, he could not be held guilty of obstruction.
Today Lord Justice Scott Baker and Mr Justice Owen certified that the case raised issues of general public importance fit for consideration by the law lords. But they refused the Crown Prosecution Service at Taunton permission to appeal, in effect leaving it to the law lords themselves to decide whether they will hear the case.
The High Court judges had rejected a prosecution appeal against a decision by Taunton Crown Court which had overturned Mr Glendinning's conviction by Yeovil magistrates. The 55-year-old milk tanker driver, who lives in Yeovil, was prosecuted after police saw him giving his arm signal on the A303 at Tinkers Hill, Stoke Trister, Somerset, in June last year.
It was alleged that he knew that a police speed trap had been set up in a lay-by ahead to catch drivers exceeding the 70mph limit. His lorry's speed was restricted to 50mph. He was being overtaken by other drivers. But there was nothing to suggest they were doing more than 70mph, or were likely to do so, at the time.
Lord Justice Scott Baker asked prosecution lawyers what the difference was between Mr Glendinning's arm signal and a sign warning motorsts of speed cameras. And Mr Justice Owen suggested that some people might think the police would appreciate "the efforts of others to prevent speeding". Crown counsel Ben Tabiner said "two completely different strategies" were involved. Warning signs were preventative. A speed trap was specifically to catch people.
Police officers had set up their trap because, earlier that day, an average of one driver per minute had been breaking the speed limit at that point.
Mr Glendinning's signal had prevented the police from finding out which drivers, if any, would have exceeded the limit but for the warning he had given, argued Mr Tabiner. But the judges held that, because there was no evidence that any other drivers in the area at the time were influenced by his signal and slowed down as a result, he did not obstruct the police.
Today the judges certified the following question for consideration by the House of Lords: "For there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty by the giving of a warning of the presence of a speed trap, is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were themselves exceeding the speed limit, or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap?"
The judges refused an application by Mr Tabiner to certify a wider question, saying it would only raise issues which were "academic".
Related Linkswww.bmf.co.uk
Related News
