Police go for man on yellow line with BB Options

[stamfordman]

This looks rather heavy handed even if it was obstruction.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-72...itting-man.html

[Advertisement]

[PASTMYBEST]

end of the day
"guy is parked within the 10m distance from a corner that is specified within Highway Code as Do Not Park."
is meaningless.
'breaking' the H/C is not an offence. H/C can be used in evidence when an RTA offense is prosecuted, on its own it means nothing (and you will struggle to find that 10 metre stuff in the RTAs)

can you point to a definition of obstruction of the highway for me please

[DancingDad]

Racist police possibly?

The cop who was doing the talking looked like he had quite a good suntan himself..racist ????

end of the day
"guy is parked within the 10m distance from a corner that is specified within Highway Code as Do Not Park."
is meaningless.
'breaking' the H/C is not an offence. H/C can be used in evidence when an RTA offense is prosecuted, on its own it means nothing (and you will struggle to find that 10 metre stuff in the RTAs)

I don't need to find the 10m stuff within RTA (and not looking cos I know it is not there), the unnecessary obstruction is in there.
Was it unnecessary obstruction?
Yes, very close to a corner, totally against guidance as contained within HC is all the occifer has to say in court.
Unless the driver has a clever solicitor who can somehow persuade the court that the HC guidance is irrelevant and that there was either no obstruction or that it was necessary, the court will accept it.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 22:34

[bama]

end of the day
"guy is parked within the 10m distance from a corner that is specified within Highway Code as Do Not Park."
is meaningless.
'breaking' the H/C is not an offence. H/C can be used in evidence when an RTA offense is prosecuted, on its own it means nothing (and you will struggle to find that 10 metre stuff in the RTAs)

can you point to a definition of obstruction of the highway for me please

surely you can find one. the point was the otiose reference to the H/C

[DancingDad]

……….. the point was the otiose reference to the H/C

Why otiose Bama ?

[yen_powell]

In case any one is interested, this is the spot where the arrest took place. The car was parked where the silver one (slightly on the footway)is in the GSV view.
https://goo.gl/maps/W8o8jqaSvaHNjgnEA

This post has been edited by yen_powell: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 08:01

[The Rookie]

Well I’d class that as unnecessary obstruction, too close to the junction.

[Mr Meldrew]

The car can be required to move under Regulation 3 of the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 where it has been left on a road in a position or circumstances that cause an obstruction to persons using the road. Regulation 3 does not create an offence relating to leaving the car on a road, it is Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980, and Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 that create offences relating to the allegation of “obstructing the highway”. As regards section 137 and regulation 103, obstruction is established by proof that the highway (or part of it) has been wilfully denied to the public without lawful excuse so as to constitute an unreasonable use of the highway.

The obvious intent of regulation 3 was to empower the constable to require the car to move when there was an actual urgency, i.e. an actual obstruction of the highway which might be an obstruction not involving unreasonable use of the highway, see Carey v CC of Avon and Somerset (1995) which concluded that the absence of any qualification as to reasonableness of the use of the highway was a strong pointer that "obstruction" in the 1986 Regulations did not bear the same meaning as in the other regulations. Obviously, this matter involved a judgement on the part of the constable, who needed to assess the extent to which the car constituted an actual obstruction to the passage of users of that road. However, the car was reportedly left to remain at the location the next day and I therefore question whether there was in the first place an actual urgency to clear the road under Regulation 3, and if not, what then were the reasonable grounds for believing that arrest was the practical, sensible and proportionate way to deal with the alleged offence when there was available the less invasive option of issuing a TFPN?

I find the handling of this matter very sad.

[stamfordman]

The car can be required to move under Regulation 3 of the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 where it has been left on a road in a position or circumstances that cause an obstruction to persons using the road. Regulation 3 does not create an offence relating to leaving the car on a road, it is Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980, and Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 that create offences relating to the allegation of “obstructing the highway”. As regards section 137 and regulation 103, obstruction is established by proof that the highway (or part of it) has been wilfully denied to the public without lawful excuse so as to constitute an unreasonable use of the highway.

The obvious intent of regulation 3 was to empower the constable to require the car to move when there was an actual urgency, i.e. an actual obstruction of the highway which might be an obstruction not involving unreasonable use of the highway, see Carey v CC of Avon and Somerset (1995) which concluded that the absence of any qualification as to reasonableness of the use of the highway was a strong pointer that "obstruction" in the 1986 Regulations did not bear the same meaning as in the other regulations. Obviously, this matter involved a judgement on the part of the constable, who needed to assess the extent to which the car constituted an actual obstruction to the passage of users of that road. However, the car was reportedly left to remain at the location the next day and I therefore question whether there was in the first place an actual urgency to clear the road under Regulation 3, and if not, what then were the reasonable grounds for believing that arrest was the practical, sensible and proportionate way to deal with the alleged offence when there was available the less invasive option of issuing a TFPN?

I find the handling of this matter very sad.

+1

[stereophoney]

I therefore question whether there was in the first place an actual urgency to clear the road under Regulation 3, and if not, what then were the reasonable grounds for believing that arrest was the practical, sensible and proportionate way to deal with the alleged offence when there was available the less invasive option of issuing a TFPN?

Although the initial offence was a minor one, I suspect that was not the reason for the arrest. Arresting in order to ascertain someone's name and address meets the necessity criteria, and the only reason it went this far was the attitude of the arrrested person. If you actively resist an arrest and get hurt in the meantime or your children witness it, that's on you, not the police, even if you think the arrest it wrong. An arrest like this is always going to look bad, but how else can a person who is resisting be arrested?

[cp8759]

This is my point...

Your point is besides the point though. It doesn't matter whether the vehicle was causing an obstruction or not, if a constable in uniform gives a driver a direction to move his vehicle, failure to do so is an offence. Failure by the driver to produce his driving licence is also an offence. The arrested person has clearly committed both these offences, so whether their vehicle was causing an obstruction is entirely academic.

[Mr Meldrew]

I therefore question whether there was in the first place an actual urgency to clear the road under Regulation 3, and if not, what then were the reasonable grounds for believing that arrest was the practical, sensible and proportionate way to deal with the alleged offence when there was available the less invasive option of issuing a TFPN?

Although the initial offence was a minor one, I suspect that was not the reason for the arrest. Arresting in order to ascertain someone's name and address meets the necessity criteria, and the only reason it went this far was the attitude of the arrrested person. If you actively resist an arrest and get hurt in the meantime or your children witness it, that's on you, not the police, even if you think the arrest it wrong. An arrest like this is always going to look bad, but how else can a person who is resisting be arrested?

As I said, it makes me sad to see coppers brawling in the street in the handling of a parking violation, which may or not have been avoidable (given the man’s obstinacy) if the constable had remained within his essential objective to remove the car and requested a tow truck, or simply given the man a warning that it was within his power to do so. I remain unconvinced that the constable had reason to believe it was practical, sensible and proportionate in all the circumstances to arrest the man at that time.

[southpaw82]

As I said, it makes me sad to see coppers brawling in the street in the handling of a parking violation, which may or not have been avoidable (given the man’s obstinacy) if the constable had remained within his essential objective to remove the car and requested a tow truck, or simply given the man a warning that it was within his power to do so. I remain unconvinced that the constable had reason to believe it was practical, sensible and proportionate in all the circumstances to arrest the man at that time.

Have you ever been a police officer?

[Mr Meldrew]

As I said, it makes me sad to see coppers brawling in the street in the handling of a parking violation, which may or not have been avoidable (given the man’s obstinacy) if the constable had remained within his essential objective to remove the car and requested a tow truck, or simply given the man a warning that it was within his power to do so. I remain unconvinced that the constable had reason to believe it was practical, sensible and proportionate in all the circumstances to arrest the man at that time.

Have you ever been a police officer?

No, but as an ordinary observer of the events available I remain unconvinced that the constable had reason to believe it was practical, sensible and proportionate in all the circumstances to arrest the man at that time.

[southpaw82]

No, but as an ordinary observer of the events available I remain unconvinced that the constable had reason to believe it was practical, sensible and proportionate in all the circumstances to arrest the man at that time.

Which is fine, and you’re entitled to your opinion. I just wanted to be sure of the basis on which you were making it.

[cp8759]

As I said, it makes me sad to see coppers brawling in the street in the handling of a parking violation, which may or not have been avoidable (given the man’s obstinacy) if the constable had remained within his essential objective to remove the car and requested a tow truck, or simply given the man a warning that it was within his power to do so. I remain unconvinced that the constable had reason to believe it was practical, sensible and proportionate in all the circumstances to arrest the man at that time.

Have you ever been a police officer?

No, but as an ordinary observer of the events available I remain unconvinced that the constable had reason to believe it was practical, sensible and proportionate in all the circumstances to arrest the man at that time.

As a taxpayer, I'm happy they did. If they had called a tow truck, there's no certainty that the driver would have ever coughed up the towing fees. Arresting the driver and using his keys to remove the vehicle was a far more efficient use of scarce public resources.

[DancingDad]

As I said, it makes me sad to see coppers brawling in the street in the handling of a parking violation, which may or not have been avoidable (given the man’s obstinacy) if the constable had remained within his essential objective to remove the car and requested a tow truck, or simply given the man a warning that it was within his power to do so. I remain unconvinced that the constable had reason to believe it was practical, sensible and proportionate in all the circumstances to arrest the man at that time.

Have you ever been a police officer?

No, but as an ordinary observer of the events available I remain unconvinced that the constable had reason to believe it was practical, sensible and proportionate in all the circumstances to arrest the man at that time.

It doesn't matter if you are a cop, a teacher, a parent or whoever, when you exert your authority and ask (tell) someone to do something and spell out the repercussions, it matters not how trivial the issue was, it becomes the refusal to obey that has to be tackled.

[The Rookie]

This is akin to someone going to jail for a year for PCOJ over speeding, the original offence is irrelevant, its your subsequent actions when required (lawfully) to do something that does.

Reaped what he sowed.

[Mr Meldrew]

As a taxpayer, I'm happy they did. If they had called a tow truck, there's no certainty that the driver would have ever coughed up the towing fees. Arresting the driver and using his keys to remove the vehicle was a far more efficient use of scarce public resources.

And I’m happy that you as a taxpayer appreciate that to save money in the short term is not included in the statutory reasons why it could be necessary to summarily arrest someone.

[Guest_Charlie1010_*]

Waste of taxpayers money issuing one to him if he doesn’t use it properly.

[The Rookie]

And I’m happy that you as a taxpayer appreciate that to save money in the short term is not included in the statutory reasons why it could be necessary to summarily arrest someone.

As that wasn't the reason for the arrest, your post is totally pointless.