Driver, 64, who flashed headlights to warn fellow motorists of speed trap hauled to court and fined for ‘obstructing police’
Criminal record: Michael Thompson, seen here outside Grimsby Magistrates’ Court, believed he was doing his ‘civic duty’ by alerting drivers on the opposite side of a dual carriageway
A driver has been convicted of a criminal offence for flashing his headlights at oncoming motorists to warn them of a police speed trap ahead.
Michael Thompson, 64, believed he was doing his ‘civic duty’ by alerting drivers on the opposite side of a dual carriageway.
When stopped by a police officer Thompson disagreed with the suggestion that he was ‘perverting the course of justice’ and was then allegedly told: ’I was going to let you off with a caution – but I’m not now.’
Thompson denied wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty on July 21 last year, but was convicted after a trial at Grimsby Magistrates’ Court.
He ended up £440 out of pocket after being fined £175, ordered to pay £250 costs and a £15 victims’ surcharge.
Thompson of Grimsby, north-east Lincolnshire, told the court he was warning motorists for safety reasons.
He said he had been involved in an accident a year ago when two drivers in front of him braked sharply after seeing a speed trap and although he braked in time another motorist crashed into the back of his vehicle.
‘It is not an offence to warn people of a possible speed trap because of the danger involved with vehicles braking quite hard,’ he claimed.
‘It’s a civic duty to warn people. I flashed my lights. I had a very good reason to warn oncoming motorists, in my opinion. My first thought was:”This may cause an accident.”
‘I tried to warn vehicles that there was a speed trap. Because I challenged the officer he would not let me off with a warning.’
Thompson was pulled up as he headed out of Grimsby on the A46 at 10am. He claimed the officer involved was a ‘Rambo character’ who was acting like ‘Judge Dredd’ in using the law unnecessarily. The officer pictured here is using a speed gun on the A130 in Essex
The stretch of road outside of Grimsby where Thompson was pulled over. He denied willfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty on July 21 last year, but was convicted after a trial and ended up £440 out of pocket.
One solicitor at court criticised the decision to prosecute as a ‘ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money’ and said the defendant, who represented himself, should be praised for his actions.
FROM NOT GETTING A SALUTE TO GPS WARNING SYSTEMS – A HISTORY OF AVOIDING SPEED TRAPS
Helping motorists to avoid speeding fines was one of the main reasons for the Automobile Association being formed in 1905 – a year after speeding fines and endorsements were introduced into UK law.
The AA’s first patrolmen used bicycles to patrol the streets and warn motorists of police speed traps.
In 1910 a test case established that a patrolman signaling a driver to reduce speed in order to avoid a police speed trap was obstructing an officer.
The AA then developed a coded warning system that lasted until the 1960s. A patrolman (pictured) would salute the driver of a car displaying an AA badge, except in the presence of an approaching speed trap.
This warned the driver to reduce their speed in a way that could never be prosecuted by a court.
When radar detectors came into use in recent times they were thought to be banned under the 1949 Wireless and Telegraphy. But a High Court ruling in 1998 established that devices for detecting radar speed traps were lawful as they did not intercept a ‘message’.
The Road Safety Act which became law in 2006 was intended to clarify the law. It made clear that GPS-based speed trap warning systems were legal as they warned drivers of published camera sites and posted speed limits.
According to the AA, regulations under the act that would enable the Government to ban other radar detecting devices have not so far been enforced, although few such devices are currently on the market.
Defending the decision to prosecute, a spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: ‘Cost is not a consideration in our decision to prosecute.
‘When a file is provided to the CPS from the police, it is our duty to decide whether it presents a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
‘In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors a prosecution was deemed appropriate.’
Prosecutor John Owston told Thompson he was not trying to avoid an accident occurring. He said: ’You were doing it to warn them of a speed trap because as a motorist you don’t want other motorists to be caught speeding. You wanted to make sure that people who were speeding slowed down.’
Mr Owston added: ’The natural reaction of most drivers in those circumstances would be to brake. Your first reaction would be that there is some sort of hazard ahead and I will approach it at a lower speed.
‘You are causing people to brake to avoid going through a speed trap at an excessive speed and all it does then is allow people, when they are past it , to pick up speed again and speed on.
‘It’s not the speed trap that causes the accident it’s the idiot behind the wheel who brakes heavily that causes the accident.’
Magistrates rejected Thompson’s defence.
Presiding magistrate Jean Ellerton told him: ’We found that your flashing of your headlights was an obstruction, we found that you knew this action would cause vehicles to slow down and cause other motorists to avoid the speed trap and avoid prosecution.’
Thompson, a married man who is now semi-retired, said he was ‘disgusted’ with the verdict and intended to appeal.
He said: ’It’s a sad day for justice because the law is being abused. I flashed a vehicle for a good reason in the interests of safety.’
The offence of obstructing a police officer carries a maximum sentence of one month’s imprisonment and/or a £1,000 fine.
Andrew Howard, the Automobile Association’s head of road safety, said: ’It’s an unusual case, but I have heard of this happening before. There are lots of people who are not aware of this law.’
Mr Howard said ‘a lot of people would be upset’ to be prosecuted for such an offence.
Solicitor Anton Balkitis, a specialist in motoring law, said most motorists who flash at other drivers to warn them of a speed trap ‘think they are doing people a favour’.
‘It does seem somewhat ironic that they are actually encouraging people, by flashing their lights, to drive in a safe manner and yet to be prosecuted for that seems somewhat at odds with the purposes of the legislation,’ he said.
‘But it is an offence of obstruction and people do get taken to court for it so perhaps people need to be made aware of it.’
If you found this website/post informative or interesting,
won't you consider making a small donation or other contribution?
Loading ...
January 15th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
As is often the case, to me this is another example of an overzealous prosecution. Police officers need to take their job seriously, but not take “themselves” seriously.
April 12th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
You can flash your lights. You are only obstructing the law if it can be proved that the other driver was actually speeding.
April 12th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Mr Thompson should have never specified the reason for the “blipping” of his headlights. It would then fall on the prosecution to prove the intended purpose, or if the action was actually with intent.
It is perfectly possible that he wanted to wash his windscreen but pulled the wrong stalk by mistake (applicable to lots of car-manufactures).
I thought the court-case result was a disgrace and made a mockery of the judicial-system. There have been court-cases with people caught speeding at speeds over the “Dreaded” 100mph that have been fined much less. Indeed, the fines imposed on speeders in court are means-tested based on weekly-earnings. Therefore, if Mr Thompson, who is presumably retired, was caught speeding at 101mph on a 70mph dual-carriageway, he would likely have been fined much less than the £440 he incurred from signalling to other drivers.
If signalling to on-coming drivers slows them down BEFORE the speed-trap, then they are no longer breaking the “Law” when they enter the speed-trap, therefore how can the “justice” be “perverted”?
If Mr Thompson was a pedestrian he would be allowed to hold up a sign saying “WARNING SPEED TRAP”. The police couldn’t prosecute him as that would contravene his civil rights, his freedom of speech. Yet such an act is deemed a “perversion of justice” when he blips his headlights. If the headlights are being used to send a message, and it is proved that they were used to send a message, then surely that is freedom of speech? Now you could perhaps argue that the headlights are being used inappropriately but that incurs a fine of about £30.
I think that the police like to go fishing and they get really pissed when someone scares away all of the fish.
April 12th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
With regard to “perverting the course of justice”.
Is signalling someone to slow down via a message “perverting the course of justice”?
Or
Is a pedestrian shining a massive beam of infra-red light at the police-persons hand-held speed-camera “perverting the course of justice”?
In that mickey-mouse court-room would there have been a distinction made between the two?
July 13th, 2011 at 12:00 am
The same thing happened in Tennessee in 2008 or 2009. A guy in Brentwood, Tenn. flashed his lights at oncoming traffic to warn of a speed trap he had just passed. He was pulled over and issued a ticket for something (I think, interfering with a police investigation). Now here is where you and all the others are missing a key point. Yes, yes.. I know the story above is about the an incident in the UK. However in the United States we have the 1st Amendment. Which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The part we’re interested in is “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” And here is the way to beat a ticket for flashing a warning. By “Publishing” the location of the speed trap (publishing in this case via the electromagnetic spectrum…ie the car’s headlights, just like a radio or TV station) the driver was acting as a journalist and therefor a member of the press (Citizen Journalist). End result, the ticket/citation/violation was unconstitutional. The police officer and by extension the department violated the drivers constitutional rights and protections under the 1st Amendment. And he did not even need a lawyer. Well not until he sued and won a settlement…. NOW that is how you fight this kind of ticket! BfD.
September 1st, 2011 at 5:02 am
The law in Florida is clear. You cannot flash your lights. So if you want to warn of a speed trap then stand on the roadside with a sign or something. Whats next under “freedom of speech”, firing a gun into the air, or hurling water balloons……. Its illegal … so is flashing lights….. at least three times a year I have to knock on a families door at 2 am and advise parents how sorry I am to inform you that your child has been killed as a result of a traffic accident. Would you like to join me on the next notification? Trust me it sucks…. I DO IT!!!! You Dont Want To!!! I’m Currently sittin on a road right now running radar, 38 in a 25 just went by……I give 15 over before I start to pay attention. Last week I wrote 2 citations at 30 over the limit. 30 OVER!!!!! in curves on a 35 MPH residential street……. This is not a silly game….. Just Drive.
September 20th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
To the Florida Officer……..may I suggest you to to the following site http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/09/2403744/motorist-goes-to-court-over-little.html
Sorry I just cut and pasted it.
As a police officer you are expected to be aware of the law. When you are misinformed or make up your own, that is when the public screams abuse