Obstructing a speed-camera vehicle

[stewamax]

There is an article in today’s Telegraph about a man who parked his car next to a speed camera van in such a way that the latter's radar window couldn’t ‘see’ the road.

The man said later that he had been visited at home by the police and told that he could have been taken to court.

Assuming:
a. the operatives in the speed camera van were contractors working on behalf of the police and not police officers
b. there wasn’t a police car down the road in constant touch with the operatives and waiting to stop any sinners

DAK what offence the man was committing?

Could he, for example, be accused of obstructing the police in the course of their duty (by the fact that were accredited agents of the police and the ‘laws of agency’ applied)?

He could (but apparently wasn’t) asked to move on by a police officer because he was obstructing the highway, but if the Telegraph’s photo is a fair representation, proving any genuine obstruction might be a challenge for the CPS since the flow of vehicles on the road wasn't affected.

Or what?


PS: A legal point only; I am not supporting the man’s actions!

[swill453]

The charge would be - Obstructing the course of justice.

I don't think there's any such offence in the UK. There's something like it in the US.

Scott.

[Watis]

The charge would be - Obstructing the course of justice.

I don't think there's any such offence in the UK. There's something like it in the US.

Scott.

Sorry, my father, ex policeman prosecuted such cases IIRC. Admittedly a long time ago now.

Edit sorry it is -

Perverting the course of justice is an offence committed when a person prevents justice from being served on him/herself or on another party. In England and Wales it is a common law offence, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Blimey - he was lucky to get off with a talking-to then!

Watis

[stewamax]

Perverting the course of justice is an offence committed when a person prevents justice from being served on him/herself or on another party.

Preventing justice being served assumes that there is some evidence that someone is a potential offender.
With the radar camera blocked (and assuming it is not being operated by a police officer),there is no evidence.
What I guess I am searching for is how far an indirect interference with the police's job is regardable as obstruction or similar. Are the camera operators 'agents' of the police (paralleling the commercial law rule that an agent with express actual authority explicitly represents the principal for matters for which he/she has authority. Is there a criminal law version of this perhaps?)

[redsturgeon]

This is the relevant offence: see highlighted most relevant part

Obstructing a Police Officer - section 89(2) Police Act 1996
The offence of obstructing a police officer is committed when a person:

wilfully obstructs
a constable in the execution of his duty, or
a person assisting a constable in the execution of the constable's duty.
It is a summary only offence carrying a maximum penalty of one month's imprisonment and/or a level 3 fine.

A person obstructs a constable if he prevents him from carrying out his duties or makes it more difficult for him to do so.

The obstruction must be 'wilful', meaning the accused must act (or refuse to act) deliberately, knowing and intending his act will obstruct the constable: Lunt v DPP [1993] Crim.L.R. 534. The motive for the act is irrelevant.

Many instances of obstruction relate to a physical and violent obstruction of an officer in, for example, a public order or arrest situation. This standard only deals with conduct which can amount to an obstruction in the context of an interference with public justice.

Examples of the type of conduct which may constitute the offence of obstructing a police officer include:

warning a landlord that the police are to investigate after hours drinking;
warning that a police search of premises is to occur;
giving a warning to other motorists of a police speed trap ahead;
a motorist or 'shoplifter' who persists in giving a false name and address;
a witness giving a false name and address;
a partner who falsely claims that he/she was driving at the time of the accident but relents before the breathalyser procedure is undertaken;
an occupier inhibiting the proper execution of a search warrant (if the warrant has been issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act, see also s.23 of that Act);
refusing to admit constables into a house when there is a right of entry under s.4(7) of the road Traffic Act 1988 (arrest for driving etc while unfit through drink or drugs).
Regard must be had to the factors outlined General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance which identify conduct too serious to charge as an obstruction. Then consideration should be given to charges of assisting an offender, or perverting the course of justice refer to Misrepresentation as to Identity, elsewhere in this guidance.

[swill453]

This is the relevant offence: see highlighted most relevant part

I'm not sure any of that is relevant, as there were no police present.

Unless it says somewhere else that it also applies to civilian police staff.

Scott.

[redsturgeon]

This is the relevant offence: see highlighted most relevant part

I'm not sure any of that is relevant, as there were no police present.

Unless it says somewhere else that it also applies to civilian police staff.

Scott.

But if the police have instructed the civilians to act on their behalf then surely it will apply, otherwise we could say that it does not apply to community support officers either I suppose.

John

[Generali]

This is the relevant offence: see highlighted most relevant part

I'm not sure any of that is relevant, as there were no police present.

Unless it says somewhere else that it also applies to civilian police staff.

Scott.

But if the police have instructed the civilians to act on their behalf then surely it will apply, otherwise we could say that it does not apply to community support officers either I suppose.

John

The way I read the quote from law:

Obstructing a Police Officer - section 89(2) Police Act 1996
The offence of obstructing a police officer is committed when a person:

wilfully obstructs
a constable in the execution of his duty, or
a person assisting a constable in the execution of the constable's duty.

If a police constable asks me to stand by the side of the road and identify people speeding then surely I'm assisting a police constable in the execution of his duty. Am I not?

[shadowside]

I always flash oncoming traffic to warn of speed cameras and appreciate it when others do the same for me!

[stevensfo]

I always flash oncoming traffic to warn of speed cameras and appreciate it when others do the same for me!

I'm in Italy and would never do that! As far as I'm concerned, if someone can't keep to the speed limit, they deserve to be 'reminded'.

Having said that, I do warn motorists of the many random police checks we have here. They check licence and car ownership. With computerisation and plate recognition, I feel that this is all a waste of time and would prefer to have them patrolling more at 3am when most of the burglaries occur. Needless to say, the police are all asleep at this time.


Steve

[Lootman]

There is an article in today’s Telegraph about a man who parked his car next to a speed camera van in such a way that the latter's radar window couldn’t ‘see’ the road.

The man said later that he had been visited at home by the police and told that he could have been taken to court.

The cameras I have seen are usually mounted fairly high up to prevent various types of interference. This one must have been set quite low for its field of view to be obstructed by a car rather than, say, a high-sided van or lorry.

My own response would be to ask if the car was parked in a legal on-street parking space. If it is then any effect that has on a speed camera is a function of the camera being poorly installed such that it could be disabled so easily. Otherwise that location should be a no-parking zone.

That is not to say that I would not move the vehicle if asked to do so by the police, for any reason. But rather that if any charge was attempted against me based on the idea that I had some kind of criminal intent, then I'd fight them every inch of the way.

[chas49]

Here's the Telegraph article with a photo (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02 ... mw-driver/)

This separate incident came up when I googled: http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/cheek ... story.html

According the the reporting on the first one, he was told he could have been charged with "harassment".

Sounds a bit of a stretch to me?

[toofast2live]

I do warn motorists of the many random police checks we have here. They check licence and car ownership.

That's just a tad inconsistent. Shouldn't they be "reminded" that they need a licence - and need to own the car

And anyway, what can the car you flash do if its heading toward a checkpoint? Do a three point turn and scarper

[Lootman]

Here's the Telegraph article with a photo (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02 ... mw-driver/)

This separate incident came up when I googled: http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/cheek ... story.html

According the the reporting on the first one, he was told he could have been charged with "harassment".

Sounds a bit of a stretch to me?

Ha ha, well that's a little different then, since he clearly intended the act. I had assumed it was unintentional and that this was a fixed camera.

If I wanted to take out a fixed speed camera, I'd go out at night with one my kids' old paint guns. But then the only speed camera I approve of is the one near my home anyway. It's not this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01 ... ium-sized/

[melonfool]

The cameras I have seen are usually mounted fairly high up to prevent various types of interference. This one must have been set quite low for its field of view to be obstructed by a car rather than, say, a high-sided van or lorry.

The OP said it was a camera *van*, so about as high as my shoulder?

But rather that if any charge was attempted against me based on the idea that I had some kind of criminal intent, then I'd fight them every inch of the way.

Well, presumably you would not do it with criminal intent (unless you did, of course) but the person being discussed is not *you* and we don't know if they did it with criminal intent, which is for a court to decide.

Mel

[melonfool]

Here's the Telegraph article with a photo (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02 ... mw-driver/)

This separate incident came up when I googled: http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/cheek ... story.html

According the the reporting on the first one, he was told he could have been charged with "harassment".

Sounds a bit of a stretch to me?

Ha ha, well that's a little different then, since he clearly intended the act. I had assumed it was unintentional and that this was a fixed camera.

If I wanted to take out a fixed speed camera, I'd go out at night with one my kids' old paint guns. But then the only speed camera I approve of is the one near my home anyway. It's not this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01 ... ium-sized/

If you had read the OP properly you would not have needed to make those assumptions.

Mel

[quelquod]

If I wanted to take out a fixed speed camera, I'd go out at night with one my kids' old paint guns. But then the only speed camera I approve of is the one near my home anyway. It's not this one

Near where my brother lives in Cornwall a few years back, some yobs gave a few speed cameras a South African necklace with a tyre and some petrol hung over them. A bit extreme and I don't know whether they were ever caught.

[melonfool]

Near where my brother lives in Cornwall a few years back, some yobs gave a few speed cameras a South African necklace with a tyre and some petrol hung over them. A bit extreme and I don't know whether they were ever caught.

What a vile expression.

Mel

[swill453]

What a vile expression.

Vile indeed. As used by Winnie Mandela.

Scott.

Moderator Message:
But not relevant to this topic. No further discussion of this please (chas49)