Safe Speed Forums

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ety230.xml

Here is an interesting article in the Telegraph.

The basis of the article is that the police are being taken to court by the CPS under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (H&SWA 1974).

The basis for the case is that the police must intervene immediately to protect the public.

This raises an interesting issue around motoring and speeding.

If it is found that the police must intervene immediately, will the driver who is caught by scammers, and receives a NIP by post. Will the motorist be able to give a defence that the police did not do there duty under the H&SWA 1974.

Because if the motorist is not apprehended immediately, any delay in apprehension would contravene the polices duty under the H&SWA 1974?

If the police do not act at immediately to stop the motorist from speeding, and as the scammers are supposedly there to protect the public and other motorists from the dangerous act of doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone there just might be a defence there?

Interesting don’t you think?

As the Met have lost there case on Health & Safety grounds, on the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. Can this be extended to motoring offences on Health & Safety grounds?

A speeding offence is as the police keep telling us a dangerous act.

So the fact that the police send you a NIP by post and do not act immediately is this not contrary to what was found at the de Menezes case. The police were found to have not acted early enough.

So therefore the police must now act at the earliest opportunity to stop a danger to the public.

Could it be argued that the police are not acting in the public interest if they don’t stop a speeding motorist immediately and may need to change the way they deal with motorists?

Example: Cop hiding in garden catches a motorist speeding (dangerous act) takes pic does not stop driver. Driver gets NIP up to two weeks later. However as a result of the de Menezes case were the Met were fond not have acted early enough to protect the public.

Could it be argued that the de Menezes case be extended to speeding and other motoring offences, as the police must act under Health & Safety Act?

I understand your points but the prosecution of the police was done under the H&S legislation only because normal laws would not have resulted in a successful case and the Government was desperate to pillory them as an innocent man had been shot. Without Government connivance you have no chance of success.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I under stand your point malcolmw.

However just to expand my thinking, is the De Menezes case setting a president for the police to follow?

The Met were found guilty of not acting quickly enough in the De Menezes case to safeguard the public, will this not apply to all aspects of polices work?

After all they can't cherry pick from the Law (as they have in the past with the motorist). The police are now bound to the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and by their acts and omissions they will be judged?

Example:
A speeding motorist passes a mobile police speed trap gets a pic taken but is not stopped. Seconds after the speeder ploughs into a group of people/children at a bus stop and kills a number of people/children. By the polices inaction in not stopping the speeder, did they not contribute to that outcome. As they had the opportunity to do something and they did nothing? This falls into acts and omissions? And was this not what the Met were found guilty off?

In this case they omitted to stop the speeder? Be that 1mph over the limit or like Mr Hughes 50% over the limit!

I did an H&S course and we spent the first week on the Law and how it affects the individual and the group, and the emphasis was on compliancy to the H&SaWA and to all the Approved Codes of Practices. The law and the ACOP are there to ensure that compliancy is met and if you deviate from the law and the ACOP you are open to prosecution.