Posted by: SafeSpeed Thu, 10 Jun 2004 - 08:51
Post #15214
Last year a chap in South Wales was charged with "attempting to pervert the course of justice" after being caught using a laser jammer.
But wait a minute. Suppose the laser jammer was working correctly. They don't have (obvious) evidence of an offence of speeding do they? So what's the "justice" that was supposed to be perverted again?
Posted by: Mika Thu, 10 Jun 2004 - 09:31
Post #15217
Hi Paul,
You may find that, by the end of this month, ‘they’ are going to wish that it had been mandatory to install laser jammers in all vehicles. .....
Posted by: Captain A Thu, 10 Jun 2004 - 09:49
Post #15218
If I remember correctly. Paul, he pleaded guilty as he could not afford legal representation - so much for justice !
Posted by: jeffreyarcher Thu, 10 Jun 2004 - 09:56
Post #15220
Paul,
AFAIK, two points about the S. Wales case.
1) He pled guilty.
2) He had been 'buzzing' talivans quite frequently. It is therefore possible that they mounted a 'sting'operation; i.e. they got speeding evidence by another means. Remember, two policemen's (who could have been in the van) opinion would suffice.
There have been subsequent prosecutions for laser jammers, in Surrey and Cumbria, but AFAIK they were only obstruction of the police in the execution of their duty.
Posted by: jimmy ferrari Thu, 10 Jun 2004 - 14:26
Post #15263
Yes he was from what I remember 'goading' the police!
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/newspolitics/page.cfm?objectid=12627280&method=full&siteid=50082
Posted by: SafeSpeed Thu, 10 Jun 2004 - 15:01
Post #15265
QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
Paul,
AFAIK, two points about the S. Wales case.
1) He pled guilty.
2) He had been 'buzzing' talivans quite frequently. It is therefore possible that they mounted a 'sting'operation; i.e. they got speeding evidence by another means. Remember, two policemen's (who could have been in the van) opinion would suffice.
There have been subsequent prosecutions for laser jammers, in Surrey and Cumbria, but AFAIK they were only obstruction of the police in the execution of their duty.
Absolutely. He did plead guilty. And he may have been "stung".
But the key point remains: Attempting to pervert the course of justice is unlikely to succeed as a charge against someone using a laser jammer because there's no offence recorded and therefore justice hasn't started and can't be perverted.
Posted by: nigeldunne64 Thu, 10 Jun 2004 - 15:53
Post #15267
Got to disagree with you Paul - that is why it ATTEMPT to pervert the course of justice.
I don't think the Courts would have any difficulty agreeing that fitting and turning on a device to prevent you getting caught speeding, or even fitting number plates that were either deliberately the wrong reg. or unphotographable, could be for any other reason than to hamper the work of the Police.
Any case why bother risking it - there are plenty of other ways to avoid prosecution aren't there. Probably even more by the end of the month
Posted by: AtW Thu, 10 Jun 2004 - 16:11
Post #15268
QUOTE (nigeldunne64)
Got to disagree with you Paul - that is why it ATTEMPT to pervert the course of justice.
What if he was not speeding and therefore did not commit an offence which the course of justice was going to rectify???
Anyway I thought of much better ultimate passive radar detector - based on current GPS with laser detection but linked to mobile via bluetooth to alert all members of a speed trap automatically. All members will download regular updates via mobile connection (GPRS or 3G). These updates could be pushed faster to those who are in locality (as detected by GPS unit) of newly discovered traps. All done automatically virtually in
real time .
Thus the biggest hazard (hidden vans) would only get few people and after that traffic will be calm. I'd call it Adaptive Safety System - it learns from the police about "dangerous spots" on the road
Now that sounds pretty legal to me and definately not different from those legal GPS radar firms who provide online updates about speedtraps. Legal in my view but who knows for sure?