My letter of the day following the iniquitous fine against Michael Thompson for obstructing the Police in the course of their duty by warning other motorists of a speed trap set by the local traffic Police.

Total costs £440 including £15 victims surcharge.(a Tax). I do not consider that the Police should be considered ‘victims’ in this case.

The Police seem to be forgetting that they are the servants of the public not the other way round. No doubt this is another directive from the private company that runs the UK Police ACPO. Mr Thompson I submit was being very public spirited in warning other drivers to slow down, to a) avoid getting a fine and three points that circumvents the common law that only a Court can impose fines, not an organisation taking instruction from a private limited company, b) getting traffic to ensure that they stay within the speed limit.

The Police argument that Thompson was obstructing the Police in their duty is the converse of the actual situation. The duty of the Police is to maintain a a safe speed on the road, Mr Thompson was evidently assisting them. However if the intent of the Police was to generate income, Mr Thompson was indeed obstructing them in their endeavours. The Court decided that the public duty of the Police was to collect fines not road safety.

Sir- Regarding the conviction of a motorist for flashing cars to warn of a speed trap (report January 5th), i cut out the following extract from the Daily Telegraph motoring section (August 5th 2006) and have kept it in my purse in case I ever found myself in the same situation.

” Lorry driver Charles Glendinning was taken all the way to the House of Lords after he successfully appealed against a Court decision. Taunton magistrates initially convicted him of wilfully obstructing the police when he waved at other drivers to warn of a speed trap on the A303.

“Three law lords headed by former Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, have again ruled in Glendinning’s favour by refusing the DPP permission to appeal. When the High Court considered the case in February, Mr Justice Owen said there was no evidence that any of the motorists warned by Glendinning had been breaking the speed limit or were about to do so. He added that some people might think the police ought to appreciate the efforts of others to prevent speeding”

Anne Haywood
Southam Warwickshire

(The Telegraph 7th January 2011)

So take a copy of this to keep in your wallet/purse because the Police and DPP are fully aware of this precedent and are in fact making it up as they go along, relying on their knowledge that people cannot afford able to pay for legal representation by people who do know about Law Lords interpreting the Law rather than some low grade bureaucrat ‘acting in the public interest’ (ie the public purse).

The RAC should start trying to flog legal protection to motorist instead of house insurance. Do I remember that if an AA man did not give a member a salute that meant ‘look out there is a policeman in the bushes ahead.

The Police do not really care what the public think or even bother to consider that they ought to secure public consent and support for their actions. If you want to protest and say ‘down with this sort of thing’ you might find your self in a bit of difficulty because they are interpreting the word ‘serious’ as in serious public disorder in a rather different way to the rest of us.

Jim January 10, 2011 at 14:07

So if I’m a passenger in a car and I notice a speed camera up ahead and
tell the driver ‘Oi, slow down there’s a camera coming’, have I committed an
offence? If I tell the driver to slow down when there is no camera ahead is it
still an offence?

If I’m driving alone, and I’m speeding, but notice the camera in time and
slow down, have I committed an offence? After all I’ve managed to prevent the
police from catching me.

What if I’m not a motorist at all but a pedestrian, and carry a sign saying
warning, speed trap ahead? Is that a crime? After all fixed cameras are
preceded by signs.

The whole thing shows the lie to the ‘We just want to make people drive
within the speed limits, not fine them’ line from the police. If that was the
case they’d be pleased to have assistance in their aim. As it is all they want
is a) extra revenue and b) extra ‘solved’ crimes for their statistics.

Sean Baggaley
January 8, 2011 at 17:10

I agree with the verdict.

Before you start raising your placards and picketing my home, consider the
role of the “lookout” when a gang is trying to rob a bank or jeweller: his
purpose is to warn the criminals that there are police coming by. This would
usually trigger activities to prevent the police from discovering the
criminals—perhaps they’ll switch off their drills, shut off all lights and
torches, etc.

The point being: the lookout is *warning people who are breaking the law*.
He is therefore considered an accessory to the crime at the very least in the
eyes of the law.

Now, back to the speeding road users: if I were adhering to the speed limit
in the first place, those flashing headlights would only make me check if
there were something wrong with my car—the message is confusing.

The flashing of headlights is *only* of benefit to people who either
*already* breaking the law by speeding, or *intended* to break the law by
doing so in the vicinity of the speed check. I’d equate his behaviour with
that of the crime gang’s “lookout”, and throw the book at him.

(Even the Police at the side of the road, babysitting a machine that goes
‘ping’ every time a car goes a bit too fast, in the full knowledge that their
job could be done just as easily by a camera on a stick, are bored stupid.
Hence their tendency to throw the book at you if they catch you. “Traffic cop”
isn’t a particularly glamorous, or challenging, job. And the police are people
too.)

Is the law fair on this? Is it right that being caught breaking the speed
limit—which is often in place for perfectly sound social or visibility
reasons—only results in a few points on your license, instead of the
withdrawal of your license and a ban?

That’s up to *you* to decide. YOU elect your government—nobody else. YOU
are therefore entirely responsible for their actions. If they do a lousy job,
YOU should be kicking them out. And don’t give me that “They’re all scum!”
rubbish either: either you care enough to *do* something about that, or you
don’t. Stand as an MP. Start your own Party.

Put up, or shut up. It’s getting tiresome.

Andrew P
Withers January 8, 2011 at 22:45

This is not X factor where you vote for your favourite verdict.

Thompson was a ‘lookout’ – how does that work then ? Seems a bit far
fetched interpretation.

Their lordships have interpreted the Law as laid down by Parliament, the
Police know this, the CPS know this,but the Magistrate clearly is ignorant
of case Law in this matter

Dennis January 9, 2011 at 11:16

It is not a matter of voting for verdicts, but of fitting the facts to
precedent. Glendinning provides that for there to be an obstruction by
warning of a speed trap, there must be evidence that those warned were
speeding or likely to do so at the detection point. It seems to me that
this was no more than a restatement of existing case law.

You make the assumption that there was no evidence of the warned
drivers speeding when alerted by Mr Thompson. I wonder why these warned
drivers might have to brake hard (Mr Thompson’s case) and what evidence
was given by the three officers called at the hearing – the fact that a
warning was given doesn’t appear to have been in dispute.

Your assumption may, of course, be correct, but I would be very
surprised to learn that the Clerk had failed to advise the bench of the
judgment in Glendinning. (The judgment is available on the BAILII web
site.) No doubt the facts will become clear if there is an appeal.

I suppose a lookout is analogous to the facts in Green v Moore, covered
in some detail in the Glendinning matter.

John Leon January 8, 2011 at 12:41

Colin Hughes, My life revolves around motorcycles, in that I have a
workshop to restore/repair/prepare them, I also have had a full motorcycle
entitlement for 35 years and 22 years ago I also passed my (then) HGV 1
license and it was drummed into me that the most important part of driving a
large vehicle was the mental attitude behind every manoeuver I made in that
type of vehicle. From ’89 to ’05 I watched the standards of instruction and
driving for all types of vehicles, especially after I passed my I.A.M. test
plummet as the technical sophistication of all types of vehicles increased out
of all proportion to the ethos of the law.
The latest generation of
motorcycles and cars have a performance envelope so far in advance of the
capacity of their riders capabilities that it encourages the owners to feel
that they are a superlative rider/driver behind the handlebars/wheel and that
their skills allow the law not to apply to them, this is self delusional
bollocks, as if you were to put them in a vehicle manufactured in the sixties
they would soon discover what anticipation is, how lacking they were in it’s
application and how easy it is to be seduced into a false world of over
confidence by the skills of the design and production engineers.
Despite
this I warn people of speed traps, indeed it is de rigeur over here in France
where speed cameras are explicitly understood by the great majority of French
citizens that they are just to increase income for the Presidents policies. As
a child living in the U.K. I was taught never to sneak and respect the law, I
also learned early on that ( from my experience ) magistrates were the most
prolific causes of miscarriages of justice in the entire system, not being
obliged to have any sort of legal qualification and often being chosen from a
strata of society completely out of touch with every day people and therefore
could only think along depressingly narrow lines of reason.
If you believe
in the rule of law, then I find it difficult to understand your attitude of
the ruling of the high court judges, who know the law; as to the CPS, they
only prosecute if they believe they will get a conviction and as the system of
magistrates is so biased in favour of the police, this conviction was a
certainty from the start and in my opinion the officer who stopped Mr.Thompson
knew that, no doubt having instigated many other dubious actions.

lenko January 8, 2011 at 11:46

DaveP…

And to extrapolate from there, when I persuade an accounting client to
declare ALL their income and NOT to inflate their expenses, I am in fact
obstructing HMRC, the Fraud Squad, Inspector Knacker et al in the performance
of their duties. I am in fact, a master criminal, secretly scheming to deprive
these predators of their prey.

Yep… seems logical to me.

DaveP January 8, 2011 at 11:33

Let me see if I have got this right.

In a situation where a citizen, motorist or not, instructed drivers by any
manner, to slow down and obey the speed limit, he would be breaking the
law.

I’m of course trying to see this from the perspective of abidance to the
law rather generating revenue for the government, or achieving police
targets.

Eleanor January 8, 2011 at 11:29

I thought everybody did this. They do where I live.

Andrew P Withers
January 8, 2011 at 09:36

Colin

“This summer 1000′s of bikers will invade North Wales they will not be
sticking to any speed limits.”

How do you know this ? Can you see into the future ?This is just blind
prejudice against people you do not like.

Andrew

Colin Hughes January 8, 2011 at 10:07

I am a holder of a motorbike license for 35 years. I am prejudiced
against vehicle users may they be bikers, lorry drivers, bus drivers,
cyclists and car drivers who endanger life.

NWP have the technology using doppler wave equipment to measure the exact
speed of every vehicle and its type on any road. They will not carry out an
exercise such as this as the data would be too embarrassing. Bikers can be
heard screaming down our bypass by the hundred every Sunday once it gets
warm. Anyone who lives within a mile of a main road in N Wales would concur
with me.

Just to get further perspective with my “nutter rating” Over 600
communities in N Wales have asked Gosafe for assistance over speeding
through their communities.
Gosafe is the Wales man in a van with a speed
camera outfit.

Oh and here’s a biker who forgot he was doing 120 mph

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2011/01/06/wrexham-biker-admits-to-doing-120mph-on-country-road-55578-27940755/

and this I’ve just seen, not just me then ……………………
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2011/01/08/44-drivers-caught-in-blitz-by-traffic-police-in-flintshire-55578-27951285/

Andrew P Withers
January 8, 2011 at 09:31

Colin

‘If you flash a driver who is speeding well done!’

We concur- which was the sole point of my post. Mr Thompson had committed
no crime in Law as found by the Law Lords.

Speeding drivers are a menace to life and limb. However we cannot have a
situation where resources are spent on fee earning exercises and to pay for
DPP lawyers who know this precedent and ignored it. Neither should we have a
policeman on every corner watching everybody.

Speed cameras very good at collecting revenue but have failed to reduce the
death rate on the roads.

As a community you need to stop writing letters to the papers and the
police. The papers are not interested until somebody is dead (too late) and
the police will eventually turn on you for ‘wasting police time’.

Take direct action with your neighbours, cars judiciously parked down a rat
run have the desired effect, the police will eventually say you are causing an
obstruction.

Put your own signs up saying whatever you want, it is your road, your
community. One on the country lane near near where I live put up a triangle
saying ‘For Fox sake slow down’ with a picture of a fox on it.’

It is humourous everybody knows it was not put up by the Fox protect
league, and it has the desired effect, traffic DOES slow down, because it made
then laugh and made them think.

Take control, authoritarian measures are not the answer

Colin
Hughes January 8, 2011 at 09:18

Picture this.
You are driving through North Wales with your wife and
young family. It’s a lovely sunny afternoon. All of a sudden there is a
tremendous crash. It takes you five or ten minutes to come around. Your
immediate thoughts are where are my family. You look around but you can’t move
there is this huge weight pressing down on you. You hear the emergency sirens
approaching, eventually a smiling face looks down at you and says we’ll get
you out as soon as possible sir. Shortly he returns and assures you that the
rest of your family are alive. There has been a miracle.

A biker ( with no tax, insurance ) has come through your front windscreen
at an impact speed of something like 70 or 90 mph. His headless corpse is
wedged inside your car trapping you, your wife and two children. It takes over
an hour for police and emergency services to get your family out of the
vehicle. Can you imagine the psychological impact of such an ordeal?

The above happened a few years ago. Our Chief Constable got pilloried in
the press for trying raise awareness of speeding and its consequences.

No, I will not withdraw my comment and I hope Anna will not either. There
needs to be a sea change in how society views driving. You all need to get out
of “Top Gear” mentality, it’s costing loads of lives. Four lorry crash around
the corner a month ago, three lorry crash also fatal in Scotland, a cyclist
killed yesterday and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Being a traffic policeman swilling blood off the road every week is not a
nice job nor is dealing with families concerned.

This summer 1000′s of bikers will invade North Wales they will not be
sticking to any speed limits.

If you do not support the police this carnage will continue.

* the basic true facts of this story are on a Welsh blog, the dead tree
press did not report it.

Colin
Hughes January 8, 2011 at 08:55

My point being that we have a perfectly adequate system in place to deal
with speeders. You get three points for speeding and you think I better be
more careful. You get another three then the alarm bells should be ringing. If
you flash a driver who is speeding well done! What happens when he’s speeding
and non of you public spirited persons are around and there’s a child around
the bend whose inner safety systems have not developed as in children under
nine or ten? All you people who warn speeding drivers have contributed to
another road casualty. As said you are obstructing police officers whilst
carrying out their duty to the local community. Police don’t just think where
can we get as many speeders as possible today. Here in North Wales, traffic
policing it’s nigh on possible to get. North Traffic Police and Gosafe are
manned in nano proportions.
To put my comments in perspective I live in a
village with a bypass in 2007 we had approx 2000 speeders a day through the
village. You will all be happy to know that the previous Labour government
allowed traffic policing to be dismantled. The current government seem keen to
follow suit.

Andrew P Withers
January 8, 2011 at 08:45

CH

In an effort to understand your mindset I read your ‘community blog’ , I
found this most telling-

http://penyffordd-district.blogspot.com/2008/08/carnage-on-north-wales-roads-continues.html

You want ‘somebody to do something’ mainly the Police. If your view
represents the community view , the community should take direct action to
prevent speeding, however I suspect that as per my last paragraph you run the
risk of being arrested for ‘serious’ public disorder.

A resident elsewhre in the country concerned about speeding and noise I
recall repeatedly crossed a pelican crossing much to the annoyance of the
motorists. He made his point, he got national publicity, he stayed within the
Law.

I repeat I do not condone speeding or dangerous driving. Try to understand
the issue, and not from your narrow perspective.

Colin Hughes January 8, 2011 at 09:33

Good point Andrew. We are the main road through the middle of the
village, we have a bypass. There is rented accommodation, commercial and not
too many houses. Mainly older people who do not have the bottle for a fight.
Agencies have consistently refused to hand over speed traffic data taken
over the last four years. They have three sets, FOIe’s have been ineffective
but I have learned better ways to present them.

My narrow perspective is this. There are about 3000 cars that come passed
my house each day, many speed up to a third I think. Nearly daily I take my
wife and dogs along the A5104 which has many bends. Over the last two years
there may have been as many as ten occasions where vehicles have crossed
white lines on bends by amounts of at least three foot. They can’t get
around the bends on their side as they are going too fast. I am tail gaited
by lorries and coaches. I do the speed limit wherever possible. I hate being
pushed along the road this happens almost daily. That is my perspective.

Andrew P Withers
January 8, 2011 at 08:09

CH

Mr Thompson was assisting the Police and the residents of where the speed
trap was set in obeying the Law as found by the Law Lords.

You contention that motorists should be allowed to speed so that the Police
can issue a ticket is utterly bizarre, the Police and Public have a duty to
PREVENT crime. Not to go on revenue earning exercises that undermine public
trust in the Peelian principles of Law

The Magistrate was clearly wrong in law, Mr Thompson is entitled to legal
representation under the European Human Rights legislation.

To applaud arbitrary Government when it suits your cause is worrying. What
happens when the forces of the State decide you have done something wrong and
that you should pay up, and with 3000 new criminal Acts on the statute book
those chances of that are greatly increased.

I hope Mr Thompson finds financial supporters and and a lawyer to work pro
bono (for the public good) to appeal and overturn this travesty.

Dennis January 8, 2011 at 11:02

<>

Mr Withers,

The finding was that Mr Thompson was attempting to have other motorists
suspend their offending until they passed the speed trap. I don’t know what
evidence was presented to prove the case, but I’m quite sure the CPS would
have been aware of the Administrative Court’s judgment in the Glendinning
case. I’d be surprised if the Clerk wasn’t similarly apprised.

The Glendinning case is available through BAILII.

SadButMadLad January 9, 2011 at 09:40

Michael Thomposon represented himself so he didn’t have much in terms
of legal backing, which probably explains why he was found guilty by the
magistrate.

Colin
Hughes January 7, 2011 at 23:38

http://penyffordd-district.blogspot.com/2011/01/apologist-for-speeders.html

JuliaM January
8, 2011 at 07:26

As has been pointed out to you, his actions STOPPED speeding drivers.
What’s more important to you, that people not speed, or that the police get
a tick in the ‘detections’ box?

And ‘speed means noise’ is actually an argument for research into better,
noise-limiting road surfaces, not a clarion call to drive everywhere at
5mph.

Andrew P
Withers January 8, 2011 at 08:13

I suggest you remove this childish slur, as I do not condone speeding or
breaking the Law. Police and public alike.

Colin
Hughes January 7, 2011 at 23:32

As someone who lives in a village plagued by speeders I applaud this
decision.
If one of your relations got run over by a muppet who speeds
around everywhere you might see the other side of the coin.

There is a chap up the road from me who lies there 24/7, tailgated by a
lorry who couldn’t stop. He is totally paralysed

There is also the question of environment. Alright if you can afford to
live away from main roads or had twenty year foresight to move. Speed means
noise.

You apologists for speeders make me puke…………………

Clarissa January
8, 2011 at 00:12

Andrew is not acting as an apologist for people who speed. His point, had
you cared to understand the article, is that Mr Thompson has been prosecuted
for actions that actually stopped people speeding in that area. A cause,
surely, for celebration?

Dennis January 8, 2011 at 00:21

Do you think so?

I wonder, then, why cars might brake when not exceeding the speed
limit, arbitrary as it might be. Do you not think there may be a
contradiction here?

Michael
January 8, 2011 at 00:47

I don’t think the article had much to do with speeding and everything
to do with justice and the correct interpretation of the law. The point
being that Michael Thompson did not (according to case law) commit any
offence, but has been criminalised for getting drivers to obey the law,
and for annoying the police. I can accept the argument that speeding is
a “bad thing”, but if your justice system is built on injustice and
arbitrary expediency your logical endpoint is tyranny.

Dennis
January 8, 2011 at 00:58

“Presiding magistrate Jean Ellerton told him: ’We found that your
flashing of your headlights was an obstruction, we found that you knew
this action would cause vehicles to slow down and cause other
motorists to avoid the speed trap and avoid prosecution.’” (Daily
Mail)

The above, if correctly reported, would mean the finding of fact
was that Mr Thompson broke the law. If there is a good reason to argue
that the finding is wrong, then Mr Thompson has a reason to appeal. If
not, he stopped illegal activity until the bad policemen had gone
elsewhere.

Michael
January 8, 2011 at 01:13

I think the game of legal top trumps two Law Lords and a former
Chief Justice beats a magistrate who doesn’t know her case law.
Whether or not Mr. Thomson has the means or the wherewithal to appeal
is yet to be seen.

Michael
January 8, 2011 at 01:15

sorry, “IN the game of..”

Pericles January 7, 2011 at 20:14

Conducting one’s own defence — as the defendant in this case apparently did
— can be effective but in few cases.  The general rule is more commonly
correct :  who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

The question of the purpose of arbitrary rules such as the speed limits
themselves is another matter …

ΠΞ

John Leon January 7, 2011 at 20:10

Yes in the fifties an AA motorcyle and sidecar riding ( the AA did not use
vans, just BSA M21 powered outfits ) patrolman was prosecuted for exactly the
same offence as Mr Thompson, in that he deliberately stopped a member to warn
them of a Police speeding trap. The AA then got around this by instructing
their patrols NOT to salute a member ( saluting members was absolutely de
rigeur back then ) IF they knew of a speed trap in the immediate area, the
member would then be completely in his rights to stop the patrolman and demand
an explanation to the non salute, the Patrolman could then tell him the
reason. Apparently this got around the law because it was NOT the patrolman
who had instigated the conversation/warning. Once the practice became known it
allowed members to be warned without the patrolman breaking any protocols,
under U.K. law or otherwise.

Dioclese January
7, 2011 at 19:48

Let us hope that the ‘offender’ in question sees this and appeals. This is
a truly appalling decision by the court

Richard B January
7, 2011 at 19:30

I’ve made a similar point over at mine here. You are correct – the AA patrolmen, on those lovely
yellow BSA outfits, would always salute a member’s car coming in the opposite
direction. The official line was that if a patrolman failed to salute, that
was because the patrolman had information about the road ahead – perhaps an
accident – and wished to pass it on and help the driver. The driver would stop
and the patrolman would have the opportunity to discuss the ‘problem’ with him
or her. After a while, the salute was not given, the message was understood
and a wave would be all that was needed. The AA ceased this practice in 1961.
More info here.

Gildas theMonk
January 7, 2011 at 18:24

If I were to see someone who I thought might be about to commit a crime,
and I were to warn them not to do so, or to desist, why would I have committed
a crime? Because I had deprived the Police of a conviction and a the State of
a handy tax (sorry) fine perhaps?

Dennis January 7, 2011 at 23:34

If you saw someone about to commit a crime and were able to persuade them
of the folly of their intended action, then it would be a triumph for monks
generally. On the other hand, if you simply encouraged them to desist until
the rossers had gone away, you’d be a very bad monk.

But I suspect even Chancery beagles know that.