CPS - Cost is not a consideration

Graham_Devon

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Doesn't that work as a defence in court? The trying to reduce speeding bit I mean?

Obviously not.

Speed cameras seem to have their own type of law. It's one of the only (if not the only) law whereby you are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent. If you cannot prove, categorically, you are innocent, then you are guilty.

Based on this prosecution, there is an argument that a passer by shouldn't try to stop any crime, as you could find yourself prosecuted for perverting the court of justice, as you intervened and warned those commiting the crime to avoid doing so.

Of course, this just wouldn't happen in any other scenario. It happens in these cases, as the scamera partnerships will lose income.

It's also bizzare when it comes to prosecuting this man and others for warning of speed cameras. The partnerships state that it is in the publics interest to persue these cases as its in the public interest to have drivers lowering their speeds. However, they WERE lowering their speeds because of this mans actions.

It's all just silly in all honesty. It's all about fines and not much else. This case states, in no uncertain terms, they wanted people to continue speeding...which is apparently, dangerous and can kill.....but it also creates fines, and thats what rules in this case.