Okay, you on patrol and you see a teenager standing at a crossing pressing the button, the green man appears and the boy just stays until it goes red again and then starts doing it again for the 7th time. Would there be anything he is doing wrong?
Traffic light Misuse?
Started by
Dovahkiin
, Jun 15 2012 08:47 PM
31 replies to this topic
#2
BlueLight85
-
- Members
-
- 350 posts
Forum Convert
Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:04 PM
Isn't traffic light misuse breaching some sort of traffic bylaw by creating a roadway obstruction?
#3
Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:09 PM
You could just tell him to stop it. Or take him home away from the traffic lights.
#4
Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:35 PM
Section 137 Highways Act 1980
137 Penalty for wilful obstruction.
(1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
Perhaps? I don't know if a red light counts as obstruction as car drivers MUST not go through a red light or stop sign without a lawful excuse!
137 Penalty for wilful obstruction.
(1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
Perhaps? I don't know if a red light counts as obstruction as car drivers MUST not go through a red light or stop sign without a lawful excuse!
#5
Million
-
- Members
-
- 509 posts
Forum Regular
Posted 15 June 2012 - 11:33 PM
Tell him to find some friends?
#6
Posted 16 June 2012 - 08:26 AM
Let's be really brave and lock up sus public nuisance, just to see custody skippers face!
#7
Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:55 AM
Abstracting of electricity
A person who dishonestly uses without due authority, or dishonestly causes to be wasted or diverted, any electricity shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Abstracting Electricity FTW
!
But:
This.
A person who dishonestly uses without due authority, or dishonestly causes to be wasted or diverted, any electricity shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Abstracting Electricity FTW
!But:
Tell him to find some friends?
This.
#8
Posted 16 June 2012 - 02:50 PM
Erm, not sure where the point to prove for dishonestly wasting it comes from to be fair :SAbstracting of electricity
A person who dishonestly uses without due authority, or dishonestly causes to be wasted or diverted, any electricity shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Abstracting Electricity FTW
But:
This.
Find Friends - the Life, Mates and Buddies Act 2012.
#9
Posted 16 June 2012 - 08:49 PM
Can't believe this is on here?
The most simple and easiest thing is issue them with a S27....to move someone from a specified area for up to 48 hours!
If anyone was seriously thinking of arresting...ask yourself " what is the necessity of arrest/is it in the public interest to prosecute"
(yes i'm sure you were joking when talking about arrest)
The most simple and easiest thing is issue them with a S27....to move someone from a specified area for up to 48 hours!
If anyone was seriously thinking of arresting...ask yourself " what is the necessity of arrest/is it in the public interest to prosecute"
(yes i'm sure you were joking when talking about arrest)
#10
Posted 16 June 2012 - 08:51 PM
Can't believe this is on here?
The most simple and easiest thing is issue them with a S27....to move someone from a specified area for up to 48 hours!
If anyone was seriously thinking of arresting...ask yourself " what is the necessity of arrest/is it in the public interest to prosecute"
(yes i'm sure you were joking when talking about arrest)
Section 27s have to be alcohol related.
#11
Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:05 PM
Can't believe this is on here?
The most simple and easiest thing is issue them with a S27....to move someone from a specified area for up to 48 hours!
If anyone was seriously thinking of arresting...ask yourself " what is the necessity of arrest/is it in the public interest to prosecute"
(yes i'm sure you were joking when talking about arrest)
You don't have to ask yourself if it's in the publics interest when making an arrest.
#12
Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:13 PM
Section 27s have to be alcohol related.
My apologies, brain is frazzled today! I knew there was a pre-req to using that power! haha!
You don't have to ask yourself if it's in the publics interest when making an arrest.
The whole reason for arrest is to prosecute on an offence that is suspected of being committed...
In order for an prosecution to take place the CPS must be satisfied with one of two stages first.
The first is evidential stage; " is there enough evidence to obtain a realistic prospect of successful conviction"
The second is stage is " public interest stage"
"Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest. They must balance factors for and against prosecution carefully and fairly. Some factors may increase the need to prosecute but others may suggest that another course of action would be better. A prosecution will usually take place however, unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. The CPS will only start or continue a prosecution if a case has passed both stages."
Quoted from "http://www.cps.gov.u...principles.html"
#13
Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:20 PM
So then like I say when making an arrest you don't need to say to yourself "hummmm should I arrest this person or would it not be in the public interest" it's down to the CPS
#14
Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:31 PM
So then like I say when making an arrest you don't need to say to yourself "hummmm should I arrest this person or would it not be in the public interest" it's down to the CPS
No but i'd hope you'd ask yourself what the necessity for the arrest was?
In fact in this situation, i would be asking myself " is this arrest(that leads to a prosecution) in the public interest" i feel that any officer who has more than 2 brain cells about them would be asking these questions!?
(no im not suggesting you have less than 2 brain cells)
#15
Posted 16 June 2012 - 10:34 PM
No but i'd hope you'd ask yourself what the necessity for the arrest was?
In fact in this situation, i would be asking myself " is this arrest(that leads to a prosecution) in the public interest" i feel that any officer who has more than 2 brain cells about them would be asking these questions!?
(no im not suggesting you have less than 2 brain cells)
I think your conflating what a practical might want to think about, and what is nessesary for an arrest to be legal. The is not requirement in PACE for it to be in the public intrest to prosecute for an arrest to be lawful only than they had, were in the process of, or were about to commit any offence, or were suspected of any of the previous and that the arrest is nessesary (IDCOPPLAN)
In reality I'd tell to go away, and if nessesary use the Ways and Means Act 1829 to get him to do so.
#16
Posted 16 June 2012 - 10:36 PM
Section 5 obviously 
On a more positive note, leave patrol car, walk over to male, hold his hand, walk him across the road. Embarassment enough hopefully.
On a more positive note, leave patrol car, walk over to male, hold his hand, walk him across the road. Embarassment enough hopefully.
#17
Posted 16 June 2012 - 10:41 PM
I think your conflating what a practical might want to think about, and what is nessesary for an arrest to be legal. The is not requirement in PACE for it to be in the public intrest to prosecute for an arrest to be lawful only than they had, were in the process of, or were about to commit any offence, or were suspected of any of the previous and that the arrest is nessesary (IDCOPPLAN)
In reality I'd tell to go away, and if nessesary use the Ways and Means Act 1829 to get him to do so.
I agree, but all good police officers, must hold this thought in the back of their mind?!
NO it's not a requirement, but ask yourself....whats the point of making a successful/lawful arrest, when you know yourself it won't go to prosecution!?
#18
Posted 16 June 2012 - 10:48 PM
I agree, but all good police officers, must hold this thought in the back of their mind?!
NO it's not a requirement, but ask yourself....whats the point of making a successful/lawful arrest, when you know yourself it won't go to prosecution!?
For course, I'm not disagreeing with you there, hence my practical solution in my second paragraph. I take no pleasure in locking people up for trivial offences, but it is important to distinguish between what you might want to do as a reasonable copper, and what you are legally allowed to do. One of these days you might be faced with a drive you want to FPN for driving with their mobile who decides to refuse to give their details, in that case it is important to know that you can nick him (I certainly would if all else failed).
#19
Posted 16 June 2012 - 10:52 PM
For course, I'm not disagreeing with you there, hence my practical solution in my second paragraph. I take no pleasure in locking people up for trivial offences, but it is important to distinguish between what you might want to do as a reasonable copper, and what you are legally allowed to do. One of these days you might be faced with a drive you want to FPN for driving with their mobile who decides to refuse to give their details, in that case it is important to know that you can nick him (I certainly would if all else failed).
Well of course you can nick them under the necessity test; if you believe someone has committed an offence and refuses to give details!
#20
Posted 16 June 2012 - 10:59 PM
Well of course you can nick them under the necessity test; if you believe someone has committed an offence and refuses to give details!
Lovley, I do like it when people agree on t'internet
.
#21
Posted 16 June 2012 - 11:08 PM
You could go up to the teenager and ask does he/she need a hand getting across the road.
#22
Posted 16 June 2012 - 11:26 PM
Lovley, I do like it when people agree on t'internet
I'm not just a keyboard warrior i'll have you know!
#23
Posted 16 June 2012 - 11:55 PM
Love the Abstraction angle. It's been held that an employee deliberately leaving lights on to the cost of his employer is guilty of abstraction. I think it fits but may not have legs.
Edited by trip, 17 June 2012 - 12:00 AM.
#24
Posted 17 June 2012 - 12:05 AM
I think this fits best:
The Highways Act 1980
137 Penalty for wilful obstruction.(1)If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F350level 3 on the standard scale].
Unless he is attempting to cross I can't see what lawful excuse he has for stopping the traffic.
The Highways Act 1980
137 Penalty for wilful obstruction.(1)If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F350level 3 on the standard scale].
Unless he is attempting to cross I can't see what lawful excuse he has for stopping the traffic.
#25
Posted 17 June 2012 - 12:54 AM
My apologies, brain is frazzled today! I knew there was a pre-req to using that power! haha!
No probs, with so much legislation to learn, it's easy to get mixed up
0 user(s) are browsing this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
