There is considerable legal authority that this is an offence but to obtain a conviction there must be evidence that other vehicles were speeding. See R (DPP) v Glendinning [2005] EWHC 2333 Admin. The case law goes back to (at least) Bastable v Little [1907] 1 KB 59.

the courts and the police force are making the law up as they go along to their advantage for the revenue of the government ever since the times of the sheriff of Nottingham,tax for this tax for that fine for this and fine for that it is all a tyranny the population never do the Wright thing in the law eyes it is all a big con.

Why the hell do the Police have to advise in advance the position of Mobile Camera's, Gatso's etc that are in use? Which you can then subscribe to on your GPS devices etc? Surely they should go to court as well?

I agree that this conviction is very questionable. He didn't prevent the police officer from carrying out his/her duty to detect motorists exceeding the speed limit, he just may have prompted other motorists to ensure they were driving in accordance with the speed limit.

If the enforcement of speed limits is for reasons of safety then it seems incredible for the court to find that an action which may prompt a motorists to drive more slowly should be punished. He didn't prevent the police from detecting speeding motorists, only increased the deterrence effect which is obviously a huge part of the motivation for the speed trap.

Some months later now, but here in Australia the police have protested against poor pay (or whatever) by parking near the most lucrative speed cameras and flashing their lights to warn motorists. Oh, the irony.

That's a fundamentally broken analogy. What Michael Thompson did was facilitate those already breaking the law from being detected. It's very different to a general warning to motorists to keep to the speed limit. It's the equivalent of posting up details of which properties have hidden burglar alarms and how to avoid detection. Even if most of those who read it are not engaged in law breaking, if the intention is to facilitate those who are from detection, then it's immoral and illegal in my views.

Note, this is not to say all (or any) of the motorists speeding

In any case, from reading the report, he was pulled over by the police and would have just received a caution (presumably in the informal sense) and it was only because he made an issue of it that it went to court.

This is also a long established interpretation of the law - a pensioner who put up a warning sign of a mobile police trap was similarly prosecuted last year.

A couple of general points, I'm not aware of anybody ever being prosecuted for putting up general speed warning notices (please drive carefully through our village, thanks for keeping to the speed limits etc.). To equate what this guy did to those sort of warnings, as you imply, is an insult to the intelligence. This was a Libertarian argument, not a Liberal one. It's tantamount to saying the crime is to be caught, not to commit the act.

nb. the flashing lights issue is, of course, irrelevant as the pensioner case proved.

Bob, Glendinning was acquited, because the court decided the prosecution had to prove that the drivers warned were either exceeding the limit or likely to.

My understanding is that Mr Thompson in practice made another error, either in failing to obtain professional representation, or else in being uninformed as to how to win such a case. The previous time the CPS tried to prosecute someone for this, the case was properly dismissed, and it would have been advantageous to bring this, as well as other good legal arguments, to the attention of the court. I understand there is to be an appeal.

I'm sure I read that Mr Thompson's defence of his actions included a statement to the effect that he was aiming to warn motorists in time to prevent the danger to other road users of braking sharply. If as a road user I perceive a hazard to other road users such as debris or indeed deer (have seen muntjac on A1 in Herts) I indeed may alert oncoming traffic by flashing (my headlights - for clarity) or activating my hazard warning lights. By taking responsibility for my own and others safety in this way I thought I was a fine upstanding citizen? :) now I understand I may just be fined.

@steve jones appears to miss the point entirely. The correct analogy is that if a burglary was about to commence, i.e a burgalar approaches a property and someone shouts "oi, don't do that" and they don't - it isn't an offence. (leave aside the going equipped aspect)

The assertion that you must be compliant with unlawful police direction to avoid further conseqences is incredibly dangerous and a step further down the path to losing policing by consent.

Another excellent analysis by David.

Am I the only one who thinks that the prosecution of that nice old man is vicious and outrageous? The police officers on the day had the duty of from measuring the speed of vehicles, and to fine any that were above the speed limit. Mike Thompson's actions did not interfere with either the measuring or the fining. Nor did he selectively flash only oncoming motorists who he knew were breaking the law by going much to fast. I think this is a miscarriage of justice, as well as a huge waste of public money! The police, CPS staff and the magistrate involved should be deeply ashamed!

Come now! We all know what Mr Thompson was doing and I, amongst many, have often been saved a ticket for getting such a warning. But the clear intention was to stop police catching people breaking the law (if they were in fact speeding). Analogous perhaps to telling a thief running away not to go down a certain road because a policeman was waiting. The silly fool should have taken the caution. Enough police bashing David!

The CPS has a skewed interest of what is in the public interest in deciding which cases go to court:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2195978/CPS-ignore-CCTV-footag...

Also, look at the crime statistics for the Grimsby area:

http://www.upmystreet.com/local/crime-in-grimsby.html

It doesn't seem the police are very good at reducing crime there, does it? In fact, the crime rate is shocking. So, I suppose the sort of people they employ as police officers are only capable of picking on easy targets like this poor gentleman. The way they conduct themselves is exactly the same as a school bully except that the person being bullied has to pay their wages for the 'privilege'. We seem to be living in a fascist police state where crimes against decent people go unpunished, the police can break laws with impunity and when someone is deemed to have stood up to the fascists, they are relentlessly pursued, as in this case. No wonder some people call the police 'filth' - they hardly disprove that label here. I hope Mr Thompson's appeal is successful and wish him well.

@James Hamilton: your analogy is wrong. A motorist who is breaking the speed limit is *already* breaking the law. The motorist is not contemplating breaking it; they are already doing it.

A person who is considering breaking into a house ("leave aside the going-equipped aspect") is *not* at that time breaking the law. The difference is quite clear.

On the face of it the case is worrying and illiberal. This kind of abuse could affect any of us if we dared to answer a policeman back with a question.

However it's important to consider that there is a lot of dangerous driving that puts vulnerable road users at risk and needs to be tackled. This has come about in some part because the police could not be bothered to do anything about it. One can understand their frustration when the culture they have contributed to shows its durability when they try to do something.

I have little doubt that the intention of Mr Thompson was to prevent other motorists who were speeding from being caught. He may not really have given it much thought as it's a widely prevalent attitude. However, what is his position then? Is he conspiring to prevent a crime being detected? If so, can or should anything be done about it?

Regarding the victims, often the response is that cars are so well made these days that drivers and passengers are pretty safe. Why not allow good drivers to speed?

The answer is, of course, that bad drivers are often unaware of their shortcomings and that there are other road users than motorists. Ask a horse rider what they think of cars speeding.

The Highway Code instruction above is a bit of an arse, isn't it?

What does anyone do, when late at night, driving down a brighly lit street, and you see a car coming from the opposite direction without lights on? You flash your headlights to try and tell them that they have forgotten to be put their lights on, don't you?

This fella getting done for this is pettiness in the extreme. A warning would have sufficed, if the Officer was that so arsed about it.

I don't see what he did as wrong, because I don't view speed cameras as a tool to prosecute drivers who break the speed limit, I see them more as a checkpoint to ensure that drivers watch their speed.

In a system where everyone is expected to do the speed limit, but not exceed it using a vehicle that can too easily increase speed, I find speed cameras a menace. I have nothing against red light cameras and I have nothing against signs illuminating when I'm going too fast, but it's time that the government either pushed forward in forcing car manufacturers to create speed limit adjusting cars or switched their view of speed cameras to something more checkpoint-like and purely points-based. Certainly in the city, I've had more dangerous encounters with drivers making poor decisions than I ever have with drivers breaking the speed limit.

This man's actions facilitated no crime and most likely allowed some poor motorist to avoid getting points and a fine for a momentary lapse of concentration on speed.

I do see what @stevejones is saying about the analogy of someone already breaking the law by speeding when Mr Thomson flashed them with someone already in the course of a burglary.

The problem here is that this situation is not as clear cut, largely because fixed cameras are so very visible and motorists do have plenty of warning that they are there.

Could you not use the analogy of a burglar alarm or neighbourhood watch sticker on a propert - the potential burglar is contemplating burgling a house, but sees the flashing light warning him/her the property is alarmed and decides to move on elsewhere.

On the website www.humbersidesafetycameras.com, there is a link allowing you to download a list of sites where cameras will be located on a particular date. Today, 5th January 2011, they will be located on the main road in Bilton and on the A1033 in Hull.

If the police can publish their locations on a publically available Website, how can this man be found guilty of obstruction for further highlighting the presence of a camera?

Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?

Swatantra, the only speed that is any more “natural” than any other is 0mph, i.e. stationary. If you or any other driver finds it so stressful and distracting to remain within a few mph over 20mph or whatever the current speed limit is, then drive a little more slowly to ensure you don’t accidentally stray into punishable territory – you aren’t obliged to drive at the actual limit, just not above it.

So a motorist flashed other motorists warning of a speed camera. Crime of the century no? The real crime is the attitude of the police - this should never even have made it to court. What a waste of time and money and all to stroke the ego of the boys in blue. Pathetic.

@swatantra nandanwar
05 January 2011 at 12:59

"Drivers know inately when a situation is dangerous or not."

Yeah, just like they "drive better after I've had a few."

A 20 mile speed limit is not natural,its too slow.

Ahh. It's "not natural". I see. Things that are "not natural" are bad, right. While nice *natural* things, like driving through towns at high speed, are good?

"Can we not expect other road users to exercise more self responsibility; pedestrians for example should take greater care."

Damn those pedestrians, not taking enough care. I bet that woman shouldn't have been wearing such a short skirt, either, should she? She was asking for it, not taking enough care.

"nd children should be taught not to do dangerous things in the road."

You don't have children, do you?

"The way to stop accidents is to impose harsher penalties eg accidents caused by drunken driving etc."

Because drivers deserve a more lenient treatment if they cause an "accident" while fully sober and aware of their actions.

Your comment is a fantastic example of the mess our car-centric planning and media have got us into, where your right to drive through my neighbourhood at speed is considered more important than my right or my neighbours' children's right to live in it.

If Mr Thompson had prevented a fatal accident (say by slowing a motorist down in advance) by his actions, is the conclusion that we (as a society) would prefer inaction when we see wrongdoing or improper behaviour? If he had shouted 'slow down you idiots' instead, would that have been acceptable? It seems to me that Mr Thompsons awareness had been heightened and he passed that awareness on to others....how shameful

Two points:
1) The police in Switzerland set up a speed check on a motorway a few years ago -- before speed cameras were in general use. Oncoming motorists flashed a warning about this. However, there was a second police check farther down their side of the motorway, and flashers were fined for 'illegal use of headlights'.

2) Also in Switzerland, police on the motorways in unmarked cars will 'tailgate' you. If you try to escape by speeding up, they will catch and fine you.

Ridiculous, of course.

Though not new. I remember my brother, a criminal law solicitor, taking me for a drive in his new car when I was about to turn 17, many years ago. Shortly before we reached a bend notorious in the locale for housing mobile speed-gun patrols, we were flashed by an oncoming motorist.

"If you do your driving lessons soon, don't ever do that. It's a pervert charge. Handled a couple lately."