CPS defends speed gun warning driver prosecution

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has defended a decision to prosecute a driver who flashed his lights to warn motorists of a mobile police speed gun.

Michael Thompson, 64, was pulled by officers in Grimsby in July after warning several oncoming cars.

He was fined £175 after being found guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties.

Some have questioned if the prosecution was a waste of resources but the CPS said it was "deemed appropriate".

Thompson, of Augustine Avenue, was also ordered to pay £250 costs and a £15 victim surcharge at the hearing at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.

He claimed he was flashing his headlights merely to try to warn motorists to prevent them braking dangerously when they saw the mobile speed trap.

A CPS spokeswoman 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."

"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.

No it isn't in the public interest to waste soo much of our money on something soo stupid!

I will always warn drivers of police speed traps, no matter what. If they want to take me to court, I will make sure it is a media circus when I go!

That is bloody scandalous crooks!

At a time when the state and police need our help more than ever, they seem to be doing their best to alienate us, see principle no.2. Robert Peel will be turning in his grave.

The Nine Principles of Policing by Robert Peel, 1829.

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Thompson, of Augustine Avenue, was also ordered to pay £250 costs and a £15 victim surcharge at the hearing at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.

so who got this "victim surcharge" then? surely if speed camera's are there to protect the public as they claim, that 15 quid should go to me as i'm a member of the public?

This proves that the reason for speed traps is to catch speeders in order to generate funds, and has nothing to do with safety. This man slowed people down, which is the reported reason for speed traps, and stopped the police fining people which is claimed, is not the reason for speed traps.

It won't stop me doing it either. What it will do is make it less likely that I help the police. After all that is what this bloke was doing. He was making speeding cars slow down thus making the roads safer, and he gets fined for it.

how did he get caught? flashed a cop car or something?

most the coppers i talk to hate the camera vans in my area, apparently the people running them are not police but civilians all they care about is the speed limit and how fast the car is going and in their eyes 2 mph is enough to secure a conviction which most traffic cops would let go or give a warning.

'CPS, not prosecuting proper criminals since 1985'.