Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Gwent Police confirm cyclist submitting close pass footage could face prosecution for swearing (+ video ... which includes swearing)

Force says behaviour of people sending in clips of bad driving is also reviewed and may result in action being taken

Gwent Police have confirmed to road.cc that road users, including cyclists, who submit video footage of bad driving to the force under its Operation Snap initiative may themselves face prosecution if their own behaviour, including the use of bad language, is deemed to warrant it.

You may remember our recent story about cyclist Nick Thompson, who regularly submits footage of close passes and other incidents to the force but was told that police were unable to act on incidents in which he could be heard swearing when drivers overtook him too closely.

As we reported last month, he contacted the Crown Prosecution Service to clarify the situation, and was told that “there is no general rule against prosecuting cases where victims or witnesses can be shown to have used bad language.”

That seemed to have clarified the issue for once and for all, but after submitting a further 17 videos to the force last weekend (including the one above), he received a phone call from a sergeant at Gwent Police who told him that due to bad language in some of his Operation Snap submissions, he was "committing public order offences," and that it brought his character into question.

Nick said that the sergeant told him that a victim of assault could be prosecuted for a public order offence if they were swearing when the assault happened, and also claimed that the officer told him he would be called in for interview with the intention of prosecuting him for a public order offence if he continued to submit videos in which swearing was audible.

Gwent Police denied the latter claim, saying that he wouldn’t be brought in for interview just from submitting footage, but instead was being reminded that he had committed public order offences, there is a chance his footage could be discounted by the CPS, and that he may be called in for interview if a complaint were made against him for using bad language.

Nick told us he had made a complaint to Gwent Police about the issue, and we also contacted the force to seek clarification of the situation.

In response, Teresa Ciano, partnership manager at GoSafe Wales, which runs Operation Snap, said: “GoSafe welcomes submission to Operation Snap from all road users and takes the safety of cyclists and other vulnerable road users seriously.

“Close passes of both cyclists and horse riders are dangerous and poses a risk to the safety of cyclists and horse riders.

“Every submitter, when completing the Operation Snap submission form, must declare that they have read the Operation Snap FAQ, which can be found on the GoSafe website.

“It clearly states as part of the FAQs: ‘Will my own driving or the way in which I captured the footage be scrutinised?’

Here is what the relevant part of the FAQs says:

You must be aware that when the police review the footage which you submit that they are duty bound to also review the manner of your driving and also the manner in which the footage was obtained.

For example, if you were exceeding the speed limit in order to catch up with an offending driver and then proceeded to film them with your mobile phone whilst driving, then the police will consider also taking proceedings against you.

“By confirming they have read the FAQs, the submitter has acknowledged they are aware that their behaviour on the road will also be reviewed,” Ms Ciano continued.

“The footage received by Mr. Thompson clearly demonstrates some close passing of vehicles. We have offered some words of advice to allow us to secure the best possible chance of prosecution.

“As police, we need to consider the offences in the whole and the effect of Mr. Thompson’s behaviour on those innocent road users not involved in any way,” she added.

“The advice issued about foul language is intended to allow us to prosecute offenders without having the case undermined if his behaviour is challenged in court.”

Gwent Police deputy chief constable Amanda Blakeman also provided a response to our inquiry, saying: “We want all road users to feel safe when using them.

“Many of our officers and staff, including our senior leadership team, are keen cyclists outside of work and understand the risks posed to cyclists on the road.

“We work closely with GoSafe, also known as the Wales Road Casualty Reduction Partnership, and other partner agencies to ensure the safety of road users.

“The force often provides advice and tips to road users, and the wider public, about how to stay safe while on our roads and where to report concerns.

“Any offences identified on our roads will be investigated by officers.”

She added: “We’re also duty bound to make enquiries if a member of the public makes an official report to us about an incident on our roads, including those which may not relate directly to a motoring offence.”

Of course, it is understandable why the police may, to use one of the examples listed in the FAQs, prosecute a driver who has exceeded the speed limit to catch up with another motorist whom they believe has committed an offence (the other example is less clear-cut since, as established in the 2019 High Court case DPP v Barreto, filming at the wheel using a mobile phone is not currently an offence – although a motorist doing so could, presumably, face a charge of careless driving).

There’s no mention of swearing in the FAQs, although if a cyclist were referred for prosecution for using an expletive following a close pass, one might hope that common sense might prevail at the CPS – after all, having a couple of tonnes of metal brush past you at speed is a very unnerving experience.

Likewise, in the case of a driver in court following a close pass in which the cyclist could be heard to swear, prosecutors would hopefully be able to persuade the magistrates or jury, as the case may be, that such language from the victim in no way excuses the motorist’s previous action.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

77 comments

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
1 like

Sounds like entrapment to me...

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
9 likes

Captain Badger wrote:

Richard D wrote:

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that the best way for cyclists to see justice dispensed is to carry a baseball bat and dispense it ourselves.

Just ensure the person you're beating up swears, then GPC will prosecute them as well....

I carry a baseball bat and a ventriloquist just to be sure.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
0 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

I carry a baseball bat and a ventriloquist just to be sure.

Or is the ventriloquist carrying you? And where has he got his hand?.....

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
2 likes
Captain Badger wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I carry a baseball bat and a ventriloquist just to be sure.

Or is the ventriloquist carrying you? And where has he got his hand?.....

.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
2 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:
Captain Badger wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I carry a baseball bat and a ventriloquist just to be sure.

Or is the ventriloquist carrying you? And where has he got his hand?.....

.

Or, a bit more aggressive; at least if your name is Parkinson.

Avatar
brooksby replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
1 like

eburtthebike wrote:

Or, a bit more aggressive; at least if your name is Parkinson.

Ah, the good old days when weird men with hand puppets could attack people on live TV and everybody just laughed...

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

Ouch, that's gotta smart.....

Avatar
Tired of the tr... | 3 years ago
9 likes

" we need to consider ... the effect of Mr. Thompson’s behaviour on those innocent road users not involved in any way,"

I don't understand that statement. In the videos that were shown here there was no "innocent road user not involved", he just shouted at the driver and also to himself on an empty road. It would be different if he, for example, shouted at some random pedestrian who just happened to be nearby on the pavement, or something like that, but that's not the case here. Most likely nobody ever heard him swearing at all in the real-life situation.

Perhaps I don't understand in what way exactly swearing is a public order offence. I'd have thought it's unacceptable to swear directly at other people or when you swear in a busy public place where others will hear it, but in situations where it can't be heard?

Also, when I'm a "innocent" bystander and hear somebody swearing, then it certainly depends on the situation if I'm "offended". I'm not offended when it's not directed at me and when it's obviously in response to some unexpected event that scared somebody (even though normally I really hate swearing). Is this not taken into account in the public order offence definition?

Avatar
brooksby replied to Tired of the trolls here and gone cycling instead | 3 years ago
4 likes

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

... when I'm a "innocent" bystander and hear somebody swearing, then it certainly depends on the situation if I'm "offended". I'm not offended when it's not directed at me and when it's obviously in response to some unexpected event that scared somebody (even though normally I really hate swearing). Is this not taken into account in the public order offence definition?

Exactly.  Many of these sort of offences are if the intent is to cause, er, offence.

Swearing in conversation or because you've been scared/run over - generally not an offence AFAIK.

Swearing at someone - could be an offence.

(and a fun one for the tabloids: public nudity - not actually an offence unless the intent is to cause offence etc).

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 years ago
5 likes

The police get sworn at regularly, and no-one gets arrested, so what is different about someone who has their life threatened swearing?  I wonder if there is any case history of someone being threatened with a deadly weapon being prosecuted for swearing?  In some ways, I'd love this to go to court, but even the police aren't that stupid.

This is definitely not an attempt to stop cyclists pestering them with complaints about dangerous drivers.

Avatar
alexls replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
4 likes

eburtthebike wrote:

The police get sworn at regularly, and no-one gets arrested, so what is different about someone who has their life threatened swearing?  I wonder if there is any case history of someone being threatened with a deadly weapon being prosecuted for swearing?  In some ways, I'd love this to go to court, but even the police aren't that stupid.

Ah, but the police got told in no uncertain terms that they should expect to be sworn at so they cannot be "likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

Whereas poor old motorists, who have come close to seriously injuring or killing someone, could have their delicate senses offended by some words.

But you raise a good point.  Nick should absolutely continue sending in videos with the best swearing possible (not in earshot of kiddies or other vulnerable types, just in case) in an attempt to force this issue.  I'm sure he'd get crowdfunding for a decent defence (if he even needed it) and we could get a precedent set.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to alexls | 3 years ago
0 likes

alexls wrote:

But you raise a good point.  Nick should absolutely continue sending in videos with the best swearing possible (not in earshot of kiddies or other vulnerable types, just in case) in an attempt to force this issue.  I'm sure he'd get crowdfunding for a decent defence (if he even needed it) and we could get a precedent set.

Good point; he can count on me for a quid or ten.

Avatar
alexls | 3 years ago
6 likes

Quote:

"he had committed public order offences"

Only if they can show that it was "within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

Without a complaint, they cannot show this, and so there's no offence.  Meanwhile, "It is a defence for the accused to prove ... that his conduct was reasonable."  I'd argue that it is reasonable to utter abusive words upon having had over a ton of metal aimed in your direction. 

Quote:

“As police, we need to consider the offences in the whole and the effect of Mr. Thompson’s behaviour on those innocent road users not involved in any way,” she added.

“The advice issued about foul language is intended to allow us to prosecute offenders without having the case undermined if his behaviour is challenged in court.”

I see we've already had discussion regarding the arrow of time, so we can just carry on boggling our minds at that of DCC Blakeman. 

I'd hope the CPS would laugh at any suggestion of charging.

Avatar
HoarseMann | 3 years ago
6 likes

The solution to this problem does not lie with the police. They need enforcement of these sort of driving offences to be taken off them and given to a civil prosecution body - similar to council enforcement officers. It would be self-funding via fines, create jobs, free up police time and most importantly, make roads safer as the chance of getting caught would increase dramatically.

Avatar
alexls replied to HoarseMann | 3 years ago
1 like

Good point.  It doesn't need the police to watch a video and issue a NIP.  In fact, any one of us could raise a private prosecution for any criminal offence.  So a civil body, trained in the relevant legislation, is perfectly capable of prosecuting these offences.

Avatar
Steve K replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
2 likes
Nigel Garrage wrote:

Most sensible thing I've seen posted on this forum since I last posted

I thought it was quite a good post.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Steve K | 3 years ago
2 likes

Steve K wrote:
Nigel Garrage wrote:

Most sensible thing I've seen posted on this forum since I last posted

I thought it was quite a good post.

In fairness that doesn't preclude it being a good post, just a very low benchmark.....

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
5 likes
Captain Badger wrote:

Steve K wrote:
Nigel Garrage wrote:

Most sensible thing I've seen posted on this forum since I last posted

I thought it was quite a good post.

In fairness that doesn't preclude it being a good post, just a very low benchmark.....

Damned with faint praise comes to mind

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to wycombewheeler | 3 years ago
4 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:
Captain Badger wrote:

Steve K wrote:
Nigel Garrage wrote:

Most sensible thing I've seen posted on this forum since I last posted

I thought it was quite a good post.

In fairness that doesn't preclude it being a good post, just a very low benchmark.....

Damned with faint praise comes to mind

Or in this context, praised with faint damns!

Avatar
Dave Dave replied to HoarseMann | 3 years ago
1 like

"It would be self-funding via fines"

Oh crikey. I like the rest of the idea, but it is never a good thing for the people deciding to have a direct financial interest in handing out fines - if they don't hand out enough, they won't get paid.

Avatar
IanMK | 3 years ago
1 like

Am I missing something; shouldn't the issue/problem be that Nick didn't give way to oncoming traffic and/or he didn't slow when instructed to do so? In what way would the case against the driver be undermined by the victim swearing at him. That has to be nonsense the law can't work like that, can it? 

Surely the Police can prosecute either or both parties on the basis of the submitted footage. Once the footage has been submitted it's just "evidence". It can't be up to the submitter to decide what the police should do.

Avatar
Nick1020 replied to IanMK | 3 years ago
7 likes

I was slowing down when I the car close passed me. As I didn't fancy waiting at the give way point with the driver, I carried on. I think the driver that had right of way saw what happened and stopped. I don't think my action of continuing forced him to suddenly stop. I also noted this on the OpSnap submission.

It's obviously not up to me what the police do with the evidence, but the threat by the officer that I will be dealt with more seriously than the action that caused the swearing is baffling. I have submitted over 100 videos to OpSnap and many feature extremely dangerous examples of driving that have come within inches of making contact with me. Some at ridiculous speeds, but Gwent Police haven't issued a single NIP. They've written many letters politely asking drivers to drive carefully...but threatened to prosecute me.

Other police forces have prosecuted drivers for far less dangerous close passes even when the cyclist has sworn in response. I submitted a single video to Surrey Police a couple of months ago which featured swearing and they are going to prosecute the driver with no mention at all of my langauge.

Just want some consistency here. OpSnap say their priority is with the safety of vulnerable road users, so why they're choosing not to prosecute reckless drivers when faced with excellent evidence as the victim has sworn seems negligent at best.

Avatar
IanMK replied to Nick1020 | 3 years ago
3 likes

I wasn't trying to be critical. I totally get it and have  done similar when trying to avoid dangerous driving. Just agreed that it's odd that the police were more interested in language than road safety. It would be nice if they could explain their thinking so we clearly knew what the priorities are.

Avatar
GMBasix replied to Nick1020 | 3 years ago
7 likes

Nick1020 wrote:

...So yeah, I was on the wrong for not giving way

Just to be clear, and for any follow-up involvement, it is for the prosecution to prove that you did not give way, not for you to admit it in a forum.

Incidentally, you did not fail to give way, because the oncoming car to whom you owe a duty to give way had clearly stopped and showed no intention of proceeding prior to you reaching the give way marking.  You kept to the left, with options to stop or move off the carriageway if your assumption that he had stopped proved unfounded.  Give way does not mean stop, and if you left room, having ascertained already that the oncoming car had stopped, then you did not fail to give way - at least not in any way a prosecutor could prove beyond reaosnable doubt

Avatar
Nick1020 replied to GMBasix | 3 years ago
1 like

GMBasix wrote:

Nick1020 wrote:

...So yeah, I was on the wrong for not giving way

Just to be clear, and for any follow-up involvement, it is for the prosecution to prove that you did not give way, not for you to admit it in a forum.

Incidentally, you did not fail to give way, because the oncoming car to whom you owe a duty to give way had clearly stopped and showed no intention of proceeding prior to you reaching the give way marking.  You kept to the left, with options to stop or move off the carriageway if your assumption that he had stopped proved unfounded.  Give way does not mean stop, and if you left room, having ascertained already that the oncoming car had stopped, then you did not fail to give way - at least not in any way a prosecutor could prove beyond reaosnable doubt

Good point...cheers 👍

Avatar
IanMK replied to GMBasix | 3 years ago
0 likes

Good point. tbf, perhaps the driver recognised the conflict that was unfolding and decided not contribute to it by enforcing his right of way and allowed Nick to get out of harms way. We'll never know but let's give the benefit of doubt to an intelligent and careful bit of driving.

Avatar
jh2727 replied to IanMK | 3 years ago
0 likes

IanMK wrote:

Good point. tbf, perhaps the driver recognised the conflict that was unfolding and decided not contribute to it by enforcing his right of way and allowed Nick to get out of harms way. We'll never know but let's give the benefit of doubt to an intelligent and careful bit of driving.

To be fair, given where the overtaking driver had stopped, it is quite likely the oncoming driver did not have enough space to pass - until Nick continued or the overtaking driver reversed.

Avatar
Sriracha | 3 years ago
7 likes

This should not be complicated. Cause and effect - the effect can not occur first.

If the motorist can be shown to have been goaded into intemperate action due to the pre-emptive swearing from the cyclist, maybe there is a case to prosecute the cyclist. I'm thinking here along the lines of, "come on then, you wouldn't dare, bring it on" peppered with swearing.

But given that cause and effect are the other way around, the threat to the cyclist comes first and prompts the outburst of language, the police are simply displaying their prejudice.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
7 likes

Sriracha wrote:

But given that cause and effect are the other way around, the threat to the cyclist comes first and prompts the outburst of language, the police are simply displaying their prejudice.

How can they be prejudiced?  They all ride bikes too:

“Many of our officers and staff, including our senior leadership team, are keen cyclists outside of work......."

Yeh, right.

Avatar
VIPcyclist | 3 years ago
1 like

A lot of short skirts knocking about.

Pages

Latest Comments