a small town, traffice police and a nice little earner

torontoboy45

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Toronto can you clarify the situation on my point 5. Are police entitled to do what the council normally does? Is it criminalised parking? Has anyone checked the TRO for the area? Am I wasting my time with this line of enquirey?

sorry, peter. I should have clarified earlier and -strictly speaking - I've threaded on the wrong board, as this concerns traffic violations and not parking.

torontoboy45

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Not always, hence the query. Its not like a no entry, which is an absolute, they have to get permission to close off roads to certain vehicles. This is usually enforced by CEO's and CCTV.

I'm unsure of the legal technicalites in respect of this restriction; however, the signage is present and correct.

I started this thread, though, to query my legal position after offering advice to the private motorist!

to some people I'd be a hero for fulfilling my civic duty.

to plod it seems I'd be 'obstructing' him.

peter_the_piper

Ok its just that signs etc are supposed to be simple for councils to interpret but often foul them up. I was pursuing the wrong tack here.

HO87

As Bargepole has already said. This situation has already been up to the Appeal Court - by way of case stated - and so sets a binding precedent on all lower courts including Crown Courts.

The case he has correctly identified is DPP v Glendinning [2005] EWHC 2333 (Admin) and the judgment may be read here (courtesy of Bailii).

The essence was that the prosecution had not shown that any motorists at whom Mr Glendinning had flashed his headlights were committing or likely to commit a speeding offence. The Magistrates Court (Yeovil) had convicted him but Mr G successfully appealled to Taunton Crown Court and the conviction was overturned.

The appeal by way of case stated (by the prosecution) was unsuccessful and the court upheld the judgment of the Crown Court.

The circumstances are almost identical to the current case and I find it almost unbelievable that the CPS were unaware of the Glendinning case given its prominence at the time. More concerning would be the situation where the CPS were aware of the case and failed to bring it to the attention of the court.

Whilst I would always encourage those who are able to defend themselves to do so, one of the pitfalls is incomplete preparation and this case illustrates how this can affect the outcome. If I were the chap in question I would appeal by way of case stated again rather than straightforwardly appeal against conviction. The former course of action locks the evidence in "as is" whereas a fullblown appeal against conviction would provide the prosecution a second bite at the cherry and, possibily, find that miraculous piece of evidence that would show that a motorist was exceeding the speed limit at the time he was flashed at.

I wish him the very best of luck.

rev_henry

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2960088

Here's a discussion of a similar 'flasher' case.

muckybutt

HO87 wrote: »

As Bargepole has already said. This situation has already been up to the Appeal Court - by way of case stated - and so sets a binding precedent on all lower courts including Crown Courts.

The case he has correctly identified is DPP v Glendinning [2005] EWHC 2333 (Admin) and the judgment may be read here (courtesy of Bailii).

The essence was that the prosecution had not shown that any motorists at whom Mr Glendinning had flashed his headlights were committing or likely to commit a speeding offence. The Magistrates Court (Yeovil) had convicted him but Mr G successfully appealled to Taunton Crown Court and the conviction was overturned.

The appeal by way of case stated (by the prosecution) was unsuccessful and the court upheld the judgment of the Crown Court.

The circumstances are almost identical to the current case and I find it almost unbelievable that the CPS were unaware of the Glendinning case given its prominence at the time. More concerning would be the situation where the CPS were aware of the case and failed to bring it to the attention of the court.

Whilst I would always encourage those who are able to defend themselves to do so, one of the pitfalls is incomplete preparation and this case illustrates how this can affect the outcome. If I were the chap in question I would appeal by way of case stated again rather than straightforwardly appeal against conviction. The former course of action locks the evidence in "as is" whereas a fullblown appeal against conviction would provide the prosecution a second bite at the cherry and, possibily, find that miraculous piece of evidence that would show that a motorist was exceeding the speed limit at the time he was flashed at.

I wish him the very best of luck.

Saw the story on our local BBC last night (BBC Look North Humberside), back on again tonight with the local UKIP MP who is vowing to get him all the help he needs to take it all the way to appeal.

rev_henry

muckybutt wrote: »

Saw the story on our local BBC last night (BBC Look North Humberside), back on again tonight with the local UKIP MP who is vowing to get him all the help he needs to take it all the way to appeal.

Is this still the lorry driver? So the CPS is appealing the crown court appeal which quashed the case? Mmm, really in the public interest to continue throwing money at that one...

muckybutt

rev_henry wrote: »

Is this still the lorry driver? So the CPS is appealing the crown court appeal which quashed the case? Mmm, really in the public interest to continue throwing money at that one...

Nooooo, its a ode lad in N Lincs that has been done in maggy's court for obstructing plod for flashing motorists re a plod speed camera. The local mp is going to help him take it to appeal to get it quashed.

robredz

I would agree with HO87, regarding the headlight flasher, if the case of DPP v Glendinning [2005] EWHC 2333 (Admin) had been used as part of the defence then the plod would likely have lost.
With regard to the OP's scenario, if there are traffic restrictions correctly signed then it will be a nice little earner for plod. The conundrum that *may* occur to give them a headache, is if a courier using a hatchback car like some DHL@home and others has a delivery to the street, then they will be entitled to go down it as they have the permitted purpose of being in a delivery vehicle. I wonder if plod tried it on with any couriers during their booking spree? The delivery manifest and the proof of delivery on the tracker would be an absolute defence imho.

torontoboy45

I walked up the high st. this morning and did a double-check on the signage (from the south end).
it's correct, but when I said that the signage was bang next to the zebra crossing I meant 'it is situate 2 metres before the crossing'.

when the private motorist I warned off mentioned the distraction of the crossing (causing him to miss the signage) could this defence posture be used in the event of an appeal?

just wondering.
.