Great news for North Yorkshire Police and to see that using a product like a laser jammer can attract a charge of 'Perversing the course of Justice'. Defendant agreed and pleaded guilty. Hope this sends a message to all those contemplating similar that their attempts will not be tolerated.

It is easy to see this as a positive, but where does this end.
Charging someone with perverting the course of justice when they are trying to protect themselves is dangerous.
Everybody should have the right to freedom to protect themselves, whether from physical assault or from accusations. To take that right away is dangerous, where will it end.
Taken to extreme, if you drop a cigerette but, or a piece of litter, and are seen should you be prosecuted for attempting to pervert justice because you knew it was wrong and you did not report yourself? Or if a warden asks you and you say it was not you do you then get a fine and taken to court for perverting the course of justice?

We can all agree littering is wrong, as indeed we can see a lot of things are wrong, but perverting the course of justice should be used when someone does something like fabricating evidence to protect someone else.

It is the small rights that allow us peasents the freedom we have to be more than a chattel belonging to the land, and a lord of the manor. Defendong ourselves is a very important one.

Seems reasonable to me, and some of your suggestions aren't 'perverting the course of justice', including your suggestion about littering . The actual offence is covered below and seems entirely reasonable to me.

Perverting the Course of Justice:

28.Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence. It can only be tried on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is committed where a person:

does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient);

which has a tendency to pervert; and

which is intended to pervert the course of public justice.

29.The course of justice includes the police investigation of a possible crime (it is not necessary for legal proceedings to have begun). A false allegation which risks the arrest or wrongful conviction of an innocent person is enough. The word pervert can mean "alter" but the behaviour does not have to go that far - any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to head in the wrong direction may tend to pervert the course of justice. All the prosecution needs to prove is that there is a possibility that what the complainant has done "without more" might lead to a wrongful consequence, such as the arrest of an innocent person (Murray (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 58).

30.Intention is not the same as motive. However, the motive of the complainant is likely to be important if the public interest stage is reached. The prosecution must prove an intention either to pervert the course of justice or to do something which, if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. All that is necessary is proof of knowledge of all the circumstances, and the intentional doing of an act which has a tendency, when objectively viewed, to pervert the course of justice.

31.Where the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove that she / he intended that anyone should actually be arrested (Cotter [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. 762).

Where there's a will ... there's a way.

You can see the video the police speed camera recorded on YouTube.
The little light coloured box under the number plate is the laser jammer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noMTuWW9HCI

🔸🔸 Currently using TomTom GO 940 & Locus Map 🔸🔸

How much does that laser jammer costs? Equivalent to how many years' subscription to the PGPSW database? Ten to fifteen years?

Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

Interestingly laser jammers are 100% legal in the UK
This guy was charged with "attempting to pervert the course of justice" and speeding, but not for owning and/or installing a laser jammer.
The devices appear to only temporarily jam the speed gun allowing you time to adjust your speed (giving you a second chance) before another speed reading is allowed to be taken successfully by the speed gun.
http://www.sasmobile.co.uk/NewsArticle/Police-Laser-Jammer-Fitted

🔸🔸 Currently using TomTom GO 940 & Locus Map 🔸🔸

If the jammer was doing it's job, how could the police prove that he was speeding? If they only estimated that he was speeding, why use a speed gun in the first place?

using GPS installed in L/R Disco 3 HSE (what a complicated gps) & GPS mouse/laptop/ Autoroute 2004/XP pro (to utilise your most excellent camera database. Since Jan 06 have replaced autoroute with Memory Map, as the maps are better, & audible warn

Couple of ways. They could have failed the first time but not on a second attempt. Or they could simply have reverted to measuring time and distance to calculate his speed. He also admitted it

Where there's a will ... there's a way.

Interesting the number of critisms of my statement, but we all have differant opinions. I am not defending the speeding, or the radar detector, just his right to do something to protect himself, without affecting anyone else. Remember he was not the only guy speeding that day, he also did nor speed every day.
Its only the charge of perverting the course of justice that i feel is wrong.

So, anyway, how did this guy pervert the course of justice. He used a device that stopped the radar getting a fix on him.

He did not attempt to alter the course of an investigation, but did try to prevent one occouring. Hence the extreeme example of littering, where the potental offender tried to prevent an investigation occouring.

In the example given where someone suggested a sword, i imagine there are cases where that might be appropriate. Ask black americans how they are treated, and shot, for little or no reason i am sure one of them would feel justified if he had been shot and was left to bleed to death.
But no one will dispute that defending yourself with appropriate force is reasonable against a mugger, so why not against a verbal assault by a bully, or police officer, the only real question is what is appropriate force, from saying no to actual physical contact.

I saw a tv program supporting police officers the other day, the cooper shoved a member of the public at least a dozen times, first time the member of the public touched the officers flak jacket he was arrested for assault. Is that right?

We like to believe police over here are honest. But hillsborough proves that not all are, in fact it proves that the rank and file officers will falisfy documents if asked. Read the public enquiry report if you feel that statement is wrong. And there are plenty of other examples, stefan kishko would agree if he had not died shortly after being released from prison after 20 years for a crime the police admit they withheld evidence for, evidence that proved he was innocent. And the miners.


Have any of them been charged with perverting the course of justice? No, retired on full pension. Not much of a penalty

People like to forget that police officers are average joes, no better or worse that everyone around them. Some good some bad. So they, and the criminal system will make mistakes, it is up to the public at large to critisise the bad decisions and to help real justice be administered.

That sounds like an anti police jibe, its not, but any large organisation needs checks and balances to keep things on the level. Without the police we would be in serious trouble, but that does not mean we have to bow and scrape. Instead we should work to help the police become better at what we want them to do- protect the weak against injustice, protect the innocent from the guilty and become alround good guys, not willingly let them become wise guys.