+44 (0) 1279 755 777

News Updates

Nockolds Resources

Would you warn other motorists of a speed trap?

Carrying out your civic duty or wilfully obstructing a police woman, would you warn other motorists of a speed trap? The debate continues

Historically if motorists flashed their lights to warn oncoming motorists of a speed trap the court would side with the police by convicting 'do gooder's’ at court. The law then changed and the courts supported the motorists. We seem now to have gone full circle due to the recent reported case of Mr Michael Thompson. This driver was convicted of 'wilfully obstructing a woman police officer in the execution of her duty' and left court £440 lighter in the pocket and with a criminal conviction.

Mr Thompson, was spotted by officers flashing his lights 'about seven times' and was seen to be warning other motorists to slow down. The police's argument was that other motorists may have been caught speeding and because of Mr Thompson's actions the police were prevented from obtaining potential convictions. Mr Thompson maintained he was carrying out his 'civic duty'; preventing the need for heavy braking by other motorists and subsequent accidents. The court rejected Mr Thompson's point of view and therefore it was not a good day in court for Mr Thompson.

Was he right to be prosecuted?

The police would argue the public should not prevent traffic violations occurring and be seen to assist in the prevention of prosecutions and potential convictions. By warning other speeding motorists Mr Thompson was made an example of by the police, which was supported by the court.

Using another example may help assess whether in our minds, the prosecution was right in the circumstances.

Should a driver be warned to slow down by someone who has seen an accident or pile up on the road, which is visible to that onlooker? Or should that motorist be left to use his driving skills to stop so that no damage and injury is caused? If he cannot stop (and he could therefore be speeding) then injury and/or damage may occur and the police may prosecute that driver for driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving.

On the one hand a careless driver should be convicted in the eyes of the law for driving too fast but on the other hand it must be better for injury or death to be prevented? It could well be a 'civic duty' argument that could prevent either a prosecution or a conviction and this would have to be right.

What are the lessons to be learnt from this case?

Firstly Mr Thompson probably would not have been prosecuted if the officer had not taken a dislike to his 'attitude'. Mr Thompson claimed the person with the attitude was a 'Rambo like' officer. Lesson one then is perhaps do not upset a police officer by challenging him and to be polite to an authority figure.

Secondly, once the police officer decided to recommend proceedings the case became a 'public interest prosecution'. Once someone is in this arena, little can be done to stop the prosecuting authority from supporting the police. Resources will be used and the media will be there with their pens at the ready. Whilst the defence was not the most sophisticated it was the point of principle that Mr Thompson was standing up for.

Is the second lesson not to stand up for a point of principle?

For those that say 'aye' are these the anti-authoritarian, anti-police group that see the police as gaining revenue from easy targets? Maybe or maybe not. For those who disagree, should speeders be able to avoid prosecution? Maybe. The debate will no doubt continue to be hotly argued either way until the next high profile case is reported.