19-06-13, 01:43 AM
(18-06-13, 03:46 PM)stevierst link Wrote: [quote author=Pat link=topic=8359.msg82339#msg82339 date=1371559812]I think you'll find that's written by some lefty tosser of a lawyer who writes for a blog. It was infact a one off case, and the original 'offence' is still perverting the course of justice, especially where the speed vans are manned by non police staff. This case was possibly a 'police' speed trap.
I think you'll find that's obstructing the police which whilst still a criminal offence, is a much less serious one.
He was probably charged with obstruct police due to as the blog says "were not sure what was said during the conversation between him and the police officer". It speaks books to me. A lawyer skimping on detail only means one thing..... Lies/hiding the truth!
Don't take one side of a story, especially where media is involved.
[/quote]
If that was a one off then how come I can't find a single instance of a driver being done for perverting the course of justice for warning other drivers about the presence of a speed trap?
To be honest, with a halfway decent lawyer he should never have been convicted for obstruction either, as the court of appeal has already established that in order for it to be an offence the prosecution would need to prove that a driver being flashed at was already breaking the speed limit or would be likely to do so, which unless the police had a 'forward monitoring post' recording the speed of approaching vehicles would be pretty much impossible.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi.../2333.html