Parking Ticket Issued By Police in a private car park

Coblcris

Which is why I asked about barriers.

sebdangerfield

As stated earlier, the offences include unnecessary obstruction of the road, highway and street with each having a small difference in the points to prove and the way they can be commited. As far as I'm aware, only one of them comes under the road traffic act and would therefore use the same defenition of a road i.e a place to which public have access whether by payment or otherwise but even so the defenition of the offence makes no mention of the nessesity of the offence to commited on a road, mearly obstructing the everyday "passing and re passing" as defined by lord Irvine will suffice. There is a stated case, Lewis v Dickson 1976 where the offence was commited by by creating a queue of traffic at the entrance to a factory. I'm not sure which way round this was though.

Also, I can't find a defence. I'm under the impression that the offence is one of strict liability so there is no need for the prosecution to prove intent. Magistrates will decide the unnecessary element on a basic of fact.

peter_the_piper

Its quite simple really.
FPN so its pay up or maggies court,( not normally recommended to do maggies as its hit and miss,) so assuming pay its worth calling on coppers, try to get them to see sense. If you are suitably friendly they may do the right thing and cancel :-if not just pay it. Then get the money back from the plonker who took your paid for space.

sebdangerfield

I think seeing sense is objective.

From your point of view seeing sense would be the officers cancelling the ticket. (even though it appears perfectly lawful to me)

From the point of view of the owners of the vehicles blocked in the car park, (who may well have called the police) they would hope the Police use common sense and act positively, as after the ticket they then have a power under the RTA to move the car.

peter_the_piper

We don't know that anyone was actually blocked from leaving, we are assuming someone was, as I believe the ticket issuer did. Maybe the op was the first to leave and therefore was not causing obstruction, an assumption again.

sebdangerfield

I explained earlier that the offence is one of strict liability so by that definition nobody would need be actually blocked. The fact they couldn't have got onto the highway if they wanted to would suffice.

peter_the_piper

You're right of course, its still worth trying to get it cancelled , if not , pay up whilst the op is there.

Coblcris

The strict liability will not exist if the officer exceeded his powers.

Hence the question about barriers.

Unless and until we know the answer all is conjecture.

I would the rider; Are there any signs proclaiming the car park to be Private Property - denying public right of access.

And as previously said, Magistrate's Court is always a gamble.

sebdangerfield

Kindly explain how a strict liabilty offence can stop being a strict liability offence?

Coblcris

One very well known way is an ECHR violation.

But the issue here is, is the place in question Highway ?
Unless and until we know the answer all is conjecture.