Use of Highways Act 1980 for prosecuting people who obstruct Camera Vans |
Use of Highways Act 1980 for prosecuting people who obstruct Camera Vans |
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 10:28
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
At least one police force is using s.303 Highways Act 1980 (obstruction of
I can't see any way to jump from someone being a civilian camera van operator to being a This post has been edited by typefish: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 20:23 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 10:28
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 10:35
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
obstruction of officer executing the act "officer working pursuant" Where do these references come from? This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 10:35 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 10:49
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
Where do these references come from? Apologies, I'm posting from work. The last quote was a paraphrase. Anyway, to quote the entire passage, with the important bit underlined: QUOTE A person who wilfully obstructs any person acting in the execution of this Act or any byelaw or order made under it is, in any case for which no other provision is made by this Act, guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1 level 1 on the standard scale]; and if the offence is continued after conviction, he is guilty of a further offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £5 for each day on which the offence is so continued. I'm not too sure why I typed out "officer". Perhaps I read the word "offence" and subconsciously turned it into "officer". |
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 11:50
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Prosecuting someone is generally lawful whether the offence was commited or not, but I don't think that's the question you were asking.
Looking through the act I can't readily see which provision of the act would be being executed by someone doing no more than sitting in a parked vehicle and witnessing a crime. Are they actually prosecuting, or threatened it? If they did try a prosecution they would have to show which section of the act the person (no need to be an officer) was performing such that he was being obstructed. This section is usually used to prosecute new road protestors I believe. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 11:50 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 13:08
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
Are they actually prosecuting, or threatened it? If they did try a prosecution they would have to show which section of the act the person (no need to be an officer) was performing such that he was being obstructed. As far as I recall, a couple of people have been charged with this, and at least one has been found guilty of it. QUOTE (Twitter) Obstructing a person acting in the execution of the Highways Act 1980. Fines totalling £215 Inclusive of court costs. This section is usually used to prosecute new road protestors I believe. Yup, this would make sense, given how it ties into legislation w.r.t. building new roads. |
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 16:26
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Plus the fact the penalty includes a daily 'add on' for ongoing offences.
Found guilty or plead guilty (£215 including costs suggests a guilty plea, though they are prosecution and not court costs of course). -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 17:15
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I fail to see how operating a speed camera falls within the Highways Act 1980 or any regulations made under it. It seems an essential ingredient of the offence is missing.
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 18:09
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,535 Joined: 16 Jan 2009 From: Up north Member No.: 25,505 |
I fail to see how operating a speed camera falls within the Highways Act 1980 or any regulations made under it. It seems an essential ingredient of the offence is missing.
which is? -------------------- Bridges burnt, Rubicons crossed. Parthian shots delivered, but always with style
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 18:31
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
I fail to see how operating a speed camera falls within the Highways Act 1980 or any regulations made under it. It seems an essential ingredient of the offence is missing. which is? The quoted legislation [Highways Act 1980, section 303] is "A person who wilfully obstructs any person acting in the execution of this Act ..." A speed camera op. is not acting in the execution of that Act. QED. |
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 18:52
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,535 Joined: 16 Jan 2009 From: Up north Member No.: 25,505 |
to the OP. the section says "A person who wilfully obstructs any person" no mention of officer
-------------------- Bridges burnt, Rubicons crossed. Parthian shots delivered, but always with style
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 19:06
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
to the OP. the section says "A person who wilfully obstructs any person" no mention of officer Any person acting in the execution of the Act... Which part of the act covers operating a speed camera? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 20:04
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
to the OP. the section says "A person who wilfully obstructs any person" no mention of officer If you chose to cherry-pick that passage as your key point, you would commit the offence if you stood in your doorway to stop a pushy door to door salesman from barging his way into your home. Why not go one better and use the dictionary as your definitive authority and cherry-pick whichever words you like in whatever order you like to prove whatever point you want to prove? -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 20:22
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
to the OP. the section says "A person who wilfully obstructs any person" no mention of officer I've modified the original post as it appears that my "sh*t, let's type something whilst I have a moment free at work" effort appears to have got people confused. Glad to see the overall opinion is shared. |
|
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 20:53
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Your original post was fine, it's the inability of the aging ferret to try and work out what it means that is the issue.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Guest_Bogsy_* |
Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 23:43
Post
#15
|
Guests |
I fail to see how operating a speed camera falls within the Highways Act 1980 or any regulations made under it. It seems an essential ingredient of the offence is missing. I agree. The closest I can find in the HA 1980 is s.95A http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/95A but it concerns installation not operation or obstruction. Possibly s.89(2) of the Police Act 1996 is more appropriate? Civilian staff would be assisting a constable since a constable would delegate the duty to them. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/89 This post has been edited by Bogsy: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 23:56 |
|
|
Fri, 4 Aug 2017 - 10:42
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I fail to see how operating a speed camera falls within the Highways Act 1980 or any regulations made under it. It seems an essential ingredient of the offence is missing. I agree. The closest I can find in the HA 1980 is s.95A http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/95A but it concerns installation not operation or obstruction. Possibly s.89(2) of the Police Act 1996 is more appropriate? Civilian staff would be assisting a constable since a constable would delegate the duty to them. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/89 That's a very wide definition of assisting. The mischief contemplated is obstructing someone coming to a constable's immediate aid, I would suggest. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 4 Aug 2017 - 10:47
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Agreed, but ironically the Police act seems to be closer to creating a genuine offence of the action than the Highways act!
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 4 Aug 2017 - 10:57
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
Agreed, but ironically the Police act seems to be closer to creating a genuine offence of the action than the Highways act! But only if, say, the head of a unit was a police officer as opposed to a being a member of police staff? This post has been edited by typefish: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 - 10:57 |
|
|
Fri, 4 Aug 2017 - 11:00
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Agreed, but all the ones I've enquired of the head of the safety camera team is a serving Sergeant.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 4 Aug 2017 - 11:44
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
I haven't read through it all or gone down through the onion skins but the Traffic Management Act 2004 has a section dealing with fixed penalty offences under the Highways Act 1980.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/64 Mick |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:46 |