Which is why, you twerp, I posted an ever-so-helpful linky near the top of the post for your education LMAO....just RTFM.....I believe that quoting Glendinning to a magistrate (remember an unqualified layman taking advice from the COTC, who cannot possibly know everything about everything) would have sorted this in minutes and seen the case thrown out. It also answers most of the above quicker than I can! Your turn, if you dare!
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2333.html
Funnily enough it was more a case of couldnt be arsed with the topic any more :naughty
That theme continues too.................
I cant be bothered to read that in depth with argument and counter argument but looking quickly at it,
Green v Moore clearly gives the 3 conditions. I would suggest with the Grimsby flasher it wouldnt be too hard to prove the points.
The cop was lawfully doing their job. Easy sorted.
The Flasher had no means of working out which of those he signaled to were committing an offence so he carried out blanket coverage.
If there was no change in the speeding offence rate detected by the cop that would demonstrate individuals were committing an offence and he had signaled to them because of his actions and their presence so that bits sorted
Or in this Grimsby job as a double bite at the apple (created by the flasher) It would actually be very easy to prove from the footage that during the time he was flashing, detected offences dropped off compared to before and after.
It is accepted that the obstruction can prevent an offence being carried out that in all probability would have occurred without the accused s intervention. Ie the offence of obstruction still exists even though no other offences were detected.
Though that seems to have been ignored in this particular case you link to probably because it suited the circumstances to do so.
In that vein:
I had one years back where I tried to grab someone who I thought was trying car doors. His mate (never proven but linked) called out (i believed to him) so the scrote ran off. I arrested mate for obstruction , his defence was he wanted to speak to me on other matters :nenauand anyway there was no evidence of any offences in the car park. He was prosecuted for obstruction when the cctv was reviewed :lol
In another one a female instructed her kids to stand in my way to delay or prevent me entering a room where I believed a suspect was committing an offence. She too went the distance even though I never got him , the room was empty so the offence whilst suspected was not proven it was entirely my opinion that it was in progress. That too went in my favour :thumb2
In the immortal words (paraphrased) of Jimmy Cricket theres more too.....
theyre all the reasons I was laughing so hard yesterday :lol:lol:lol:lol
The intent I would presume would have been by interview and if he or his brief isnt bright enough (ha ha ) to avoid admitting intent he wants sticking on anyway. I didnt see any mention about turning into a layby for the Grimsby flasher which on the occasion you link to was a plausible defence.
It wouldnt have been a difficult interview for the cop with the Grimsby flasher
In summary on this occasion I would definitely argue that the Grimsby flasher was not trying to prevent the commission of an offence he was attempting to inhibit continuation of an ongoing offence in order to prevent detection.
I would tend to think the courts agree with my argument on this one, proof of the pudding and all of that
(and my jobs from the 90's)
Dont forget that each case is judged on its own merits and every one is different. Stated cases and precedents are for guidance and half the fun is getting around or overturning them :thumb2
I should also add that whilst I won those Ive spectacularly lost others including trying to persuade a judge (via the barrister) that running away whilst equipped fulfilled the criteria of going equipped :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol
Thats it Im knackered
