PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Use of Highways Act 1980 for prosecuting people who obstruct Camera Vans
typefish
post 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 officer person executing the act) to prosecute anyone who is obstructing civilian operators of camera vans, and after looking through various pieces of legislation, I'm sitting here wondering if this is actually unlawful.

I can't see any way to jump from someone being a civilian camera van operator to being a officer person working pursuant to the Highways Act or its children.

This post has been edited by typefish: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 20:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 10:28
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post 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



QUOTE (typefish @ Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 11:28) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 10:49
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 11:35) *
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".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 13:08
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 12:50) *
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.


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 12:50) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldstoat
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 18:31
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,300
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (oldstoat @ Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 19:09) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldstoat
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post 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



QUOTE (oldstoat @ Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 19:52) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 20:04
Post #12


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (oldstoat @ Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 19:52) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 20:22
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



QUOTE (oldstoat @ Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 19:52) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Bogsy_*
post Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 23:43
Post #15





Guests






QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 18:15) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post 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



QUOTE (Bogsy @ Fri, 4 Aug 2017 - 00:43) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 3 Aug 2017 - 18:15) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Fri, 4 Aug 2017 - 10:57
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 4 Aug 2017 - 11:47) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:46
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here