Safe Speed Forums

LONDON (Reuters) - A lorry driver prosecuted for obstructing police by alerting motorists to a speed trap won the backing of three law lords in a test case on Monday when they ruled in his favour.

Trucker Charles Glendinning was convicted last year by magistrates in Somerset of wilful obstruction after police said he waved a warning to other road-users about a speed trap on the A303 at Tinkers Hill, Stoke Trister.

Although the decision was overturned at Taunton Crown Court the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) took the case to the High Court, which in turn also backed Glendinning.

Now three law lords, headed by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, have again ruled in Glendinning's favour and have refused the DPP permission to appeal.

When the High Court considered the case in February, Mr Justice Owen said there was no evidence that any of the motorists warned by Glendinning had been breaking the speed limit or were about to do so.

Owen added that some people might think the police ought to appreciate the efforts of others to prevent speeding.

Not sure why this has popped its head up now - the hearing was last October!

Not sure why this has popped its head up now - the hearing was last October!

Full transcript of the judgement here

They're two different hearings. The one that you reference is the High Court, Reuter's are reporting the HoL hearing chaired by Lord Bingham.

If the Reuter's report is correct in that the Law Lords have refused further leave for the CSP to appeal, (a) the police can IMHO no longer attempt to prosecute anyone for warning of the presence of a speed trap, and (b) the old chap who got fined shedloads of cash and had his licence suspended (and an awful lot of other people) may have grounds for an appeal..

To be more precise, it would seem that any attempt to prosecute would ultimately be bound to fail,

unless the prosecution could put forward convincing evidence that the actions of the accused had clearly enabled other drivers to avoid detection by temporarily slowing down.

Which is what I meant... Mea culpa for sloppy drafting.

I guess that as Bingham LJ is supposedly quoted as saying something along the lines of there being "no proof that the motorists flagged down were, or were intending to speed..." the CSP would have to "double trap" by clocking the speed of cars at some reasonable distance before the "flagger" and then check the speed again afterwards. And keep a very tight chain of evidence... Could be "interesting".