European Grand Chamber to announce findings
Discussion
FishFace said:
If I recall Saunders correctly. The issue with wasn't that you 'had to' answer the questions (not considered a breach of article 6). Similar boat to S172.
Hansard in 1999 said:
...which amends enactments providing for the use of answers and statements given under compulsion so as to restrict in criminal proceedings their use in evidence against the persons giving them, shall have effect..
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group essentially speak for themselves. They derive from the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Saunders v. United Kingdom on 17th December 1996. Mr. Ernest Saunders had been one of the defendants in the first Guinness trial. He complained that the prosecution at his criminal trial had used statements which he had given under legal compulsion to inspectors appointed under Section 432 of the Companies Act 1985. He said that that was an infringement of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the convention. The court concluded that the admission of his statements in those circumstances meant that he had been deprived of a fair trial and that there had been a violation.
The Government responded with the Guidance Note for Prosecutors, issued by the Attorney-General on 3rd February 1998. He said that the Government would bring forward legislation to implement the judgment when a suitable opportunity arose. A similar assurance was given to the Committee of Ministers in the Government's response. These amendments fulfil that undertaking by amending Section 434(5) of the Companies Act 1985--the point at issue in Mr. Saunders's case--and by amending a number of similar provisions. We thought that we ought to meet the principle of our undertaking by also including such amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I recognised this when I saw it, as being Saunders. The noble Lord said that a large number of cognate matters have been taken in in the world of commerce, as may be seen. I have not had an opportunity previously to ask the Minister about this, but will he apply his mind to the situation that confronts very many motorists in this country? If they commit a moving traffic offence and the police do not stop them, the owner of the vehicle is required to say who was driving. If he says that he himself was driving, he is, of course, prosecuted; if he fails to say who was driving, he is prosecuted for failing to say who was driving. I think that the relevant provision is Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It appears to me that that is on all fours with the self-incrimination which was held by the Strasbourg court to constitute a breach of Article 6(1) both in terms of lack of a fair trial and in terms of presumption of innocence.
Are there not other cases on the statute book where such provisions apply? Would it not be wise for the Government to look rather further afield now that the Human Rights Act is coming into force and given that the noble Lord used to advise his clients, in advance of it coming into force, of what would happen to them and of their possible remedies? Could the Government look a little further afield?
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group essentially speak for themselves. They derive from the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Saunders v. United Kingdom on 17th December 1996. Mr. Ernest Saunders had been one of the defendants in the first Guinness trial. He complained that the prosecution at his criminal trial had used statements which he had given under legal compulsion to inspectors appointed under Section 432 of the Companies Act 1985. He said that that was an infringement of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the convention. The court concluded that the admission of his statements in those circumstances meant that he had been deprived of a fair trial and that there had been a violation.
The Government responded with the Guidance Note for Prosecutors, issued by the Attorney-General on 3rd February 1998. He said that the Government would bring forward legislation to implement the judgment when a suitable opportunity arose. A similar assurance was given to the Committee of Ministers in the Government's response. These amendments fulfil that undertaking by amending Section 434(5) of the Companies Act 1985--the point at issue in Mr. Saunders's case--and by amending a number of similar provisions. We thought that we ought to meet the principle of our undertaking by also including such amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I recognised this when I saw it, as being Saunders. The noble Lord said that a large number of cognate matters have been taken in in the world of commerce, as may be seen. I have not had an opportunity previously to ask the Minister about this, but will he apply his mind to the situation that confronts very many motorists in this country? If they commit a moving traffic offence and the police do not stop them, the owner of the vehicle is required to say who was driving. If he says that he himself was driving, he is, of course, prosecuted; if he fails to say who was driving, he is prosecuted for failing to say who was driving. I think that the relevant provision is Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It appears to me that that is on all fours with the self-incrimination which was held by the Strasbourg court to constitute a breach of Article 6(1) both in terms of lack of a fair trial and in terms of presumption of innocence.
Are there not other cases on the statute book where such provisions apply? Would it not be wise for the Government to look rather further afield now that the Human Rights Act is coming into force and given that the noble Lord used to advise his clients, in advance of it coming into force, of what would happen to them and of their possible remedies? Could the Government look a little further afield?
FishFace said:
A few reasons why 'confessions' aren't suitable. You cannot confess to a crime without the existence of other evidence.
What if somebody says they saw you assault Mr X ? Could that be deemed sufficient 'evidence' of your participation in a criminal act for the police to then compel you to answer questions relating to the offence ?Fishace said:
The defence to 'confessions' (I don't know who did it etc) would be hugely wide with crime.
So s.172 type powers haven't been implemented for other crimes simply because it would be 'inconvenient' or insufficiently successful ?FishFace said:
It would also conflict with the caution, which is absent in S172.
Of course it is. It would be ridiculous to serve a notice on someone which stated 'You have to tell us who was driving' alongside 'You don't have to say anything..'Funnily enough, its only because of s.12 RTOA 1988 that I have an issue with s.172 RTA 1988. Its the former legislation which permits the latter to be used as evidence. Taken together, as I'm sure government intended them to be, then IMO it sits shoulder to shoulder with Saunders, Weh, Funke et al.. And before you start waving copies of Brown vs Stott, whilst that may be law, its bad law, IMHO..
FishFace said:
It certainly isn't a good thing in wider legislation.
Wny not ? Convenience again or because its application to just about any other criminal act you care to name would be deemed a breach of our fundamental rights ?FishFace said:
However, S172 is a very specific bit of legislation that needs to be viewed in context.
Yes. In context with s.12 RTOA is it not akin to applying thumbscrews ?FishFace said:
The public interest (not of people who cry over getting caught speeding) and legitimate legal aim outweigh the interference and duress.
Has the public interest (road safety) been best served by the over-enforcement of speed limits and the resulting conveyor belt of justice ? Is this reinforced by reduced KSI figures ? Has the ends justified the means ?FishFace said:
I am 99.9% sure this will be the ruling in relation to article 6 later this month.
I hope you are wrong, but I am dubious of the result. If it doesn't go our way, then I will be very interested to see what reasons they give for ruling such..This is the country that is knowingly supporting the US terror flights don't forget, and happily letting UK citizens be detained in Gitmo for years without trial or legal representation.
Unfortunately, I think that FishFace has hit the nail on the head re the ruling, whether we like it or not...
The way this country is going, I do wonder if 60 years ago we should have just opened our doors and welcomed the Nazis over, and saved a few lives in the process....
Unfortunately, I think that FishFace has hit the nail on the head re the ruling, whether we like it or not...
The way this country is going, I do wonder if 60 years ago we should have just opened our doors and welcomed the Nazis over, and saved a few lives in the process....
S.172 isn't a confession though.
It is saying 'X was driving my car at the time.'
It is not saying ' X admits the offence being alleged'
Proving the offence is a separate issue entirely.
It only affects motorists and has been around since before some people on this forum were born.
If you don't like the motoring laws in this country why get a licence?
For half the country it was the law when they passed their test.
It is saying 'X was driving my car at the time.'
It is not saying ' X admits the offence being alleged'
Proving the offence is a separate issue entirely.
It only affects motorists and has been around since before some people on this forum were born.
If you don't like the motoring laws in this country why get a licence?
For half the country it was the law when they passed their test.
Chrispy Porker said:
S.172 isn't a confession though.
It is saying 'X was driving my car at the time.'
It is not saying ' X admits the offence being alleged'
Proving the offence is a separate issue entirely.
It only affects motorists and has been around since before some people on this forum were born.
If you don't like the motoring laws in this country why get a licence?
For half the country it was the law when they passed their test.
Not a good argument, just because the law needs amending doesnt mean that you have to like the existing law.It is saying 'X was driving my car at the time.'
It is not saying ' X admits the offence being alleged'
Proving the offence is a separate issue entirely.
It only affects motorists and has been around since before some people on this forum were born.
If you don't like the motoring laws in this country why get a licence?
For half the country it was the law when they passed their test.
In addition there is no getting around the fact that the existing law is requiring self incrimination on pain of prosecution. Not right that.
Chrispy Porker said:
It's not self incrimination if someone else was driving!
It is saying who was driving a car at a particular time.
You can easily say ' I was driving but I deny the offence alleged'
Yes, you can. But with the courts' view of the infallibility of speed cameras, saying you were driving is tantamount to admitting guilt. It seems to me that if the courts were willing to accept a well-reasoned defence then S.172 wouldn't be much of an issue in practice. I'm not talking about the principle here.It is saying who was driving a car at a particular time.
You can easily say ' I was driving but I deny the offence alleged'
Why?
If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
No-one has been forced to obtain a licence, or buy a car, as far as I know.
It is a decision we all make knowing that there are numerous rules we must adhere to.
S172 is one of them.
I knew about it when I took my test and when I registered my first car.
If I had been that worried about my human rights I did not have to do either.
How is that fatuous?
If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
No-one has been forced to obtain a licence, or buy a car, as far as I know.
It is a decision we all make knowing that there are numerous rules we must adhere to.
S172 is one of them.
I knew about it when I took my test and when I registered my first car.
If I had been that worried about my human rights I did not have to do either.
How is that fatuous?
Chrispy Porker said:
Why?
If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
No-one has been forced to obtain a licence, or buy a car, as far as I know.
It is a decision we all make knowing that there are numerous rules we must adhere to.
S172 is one of them.
I knew about it when I took my test and when I registered my first car.
If I had been that worried about my human rights I did not have to do either.
How is that fatuous?
It's fatuous because it reverses the rights of the person and the obligations of the authorities.If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
No-one has been forced to obtain a licence, or buy a car, as far as I know.
It is a decision we all make knowing that there are numerous rules we must adhere to.
S172 is one of them.
I knew about it when I took my test and when I registered my first car.
If I had been that worried about my human rights I did not have to do either.
How is that fatuous?
You epitomised this reversal perfectly:
Chrispy Porker said:
If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
That's the same as saying, "This is a closed shop, boy. You can't work here unless you join the union."What if you don't want to "join the club"? Suppose you just want to drive conscientiously, safely and courteously. What's wrong with that?
Sure, no one has "forced you" to get a licence. You could live a subsistence existence, grow your own vegetables, spend your entire life within ten miles of the place of your birth. You could do that.
But why should you have to do that?
flemke said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Why?
If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
No-one has been forced to obtain a licence, or buy a car, as far as I know.
It is a decision we all make knowing that there are numerous rules we must adhere to.
S172 is one of them.
I knew about it when I took my test and when I registered my first car.
If I had been that worried about my human rights I did not have to do either.
How is that fatuous?
It's fatuous because it reverses the rights of the person and the obligations of the authorities.If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
No-one has been forced to obtain a licence, or buy a car, as far as I know.
It is a decision we all make knowing that there are numerous rules we must adhere to.
S172 is one of them.
I knew about it when I took my test and when I registered my first car.
If I had been that worried about my human rights I did not have to do either.
How is that fatuous?
You epitomised this reversal perfectly:
Chrispy Porker said:
If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
That's the same as saying, "This is a closed shop, boy. You can't work here unless you join the union."What if you don't want to "join the club"? Suppose you just want to drive conscientiously, safely and courteously. What's wrong with that?
Sure, no one has "forced you" to get a licence. You could live a subsistence existence, grow your own vegetables, spend your entire life within ten miles of the place of your birth. You could do that.
But why should you have to do that?
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 14th June 21:23
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Why?
If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
No-one has been forced to obtain a licence, or buy a car, as far as I know.
It is a decision we all make knowing that there are numerous rules we must adhere to.
S172 is one of them.
I knew about it when I took my test and when I registered my first car.
If I had been that worried about my human rights I did not have to do either.
How is that fatuous?
It's fatuous because it reverses the rights of the person and the obligations of the authorities.If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
No-one has been forced to obtain a licence, or buy a car, as far as I know.
It is a decision we all make knowing that there are numerous rules we must adhere to.
S172 is one of them.
I knew about it when I took my test and when I registered my first car.
If I had been that worried about my human rights I did not have to do either.
How is that fatuous?
You epitomised this reversal perfectly:
Chrispy Porker said:
If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
That's the same as saying, "This is a closed shop, boy. You can't work here unless you join the union."What if you don't want to "join the club"? Suppose you just want to drive conscientiously, safely and courteously. What's wrong with that?
Sure, no one has "forced you" to get a licence. You could live a subsistence existence, grow your own vegetables, spend your entire life within ten miles of the place of your birth. You could do that.
But why should you have to do that?
s2art said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Why?
If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
No-one has been forced to obtain a licence, or buy a car, as far as I know.
It is a decision we all make knowing that there are numerous rules we must adhere to.
S172 is one of them.
I knew about it when I took my test and when I registered my first car.
If I had been that worried about my human rights I did not have to do either.
How is that fatuous?
It's fatuous because it reverses the rights of the person and the obligations of the authorities.If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
No-one has been forced to obtain a licence, or buy a car, as far as I know.
It is a decision we all make knowing that there are numerous rules we must adhere to.
S172 is one of them.
I knew about it when I took my test and when I registered my first car.
If I had been that worried about my human rights I did not have to do either.
How is that fatuous?
You epitomised this reversal perfectly:
Chrispy Porker said:
If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
That's the same as saying, "This is a closed shop, boy. You can't work here unless you join the union."What if you don't want to "join the club"? Suppose you just want to drive conscientiously, safely and courteously. What's wrong with that?
Sure, no one has "forced you" to get a licence. You could live a subsistence existence, grow your own vegetables, spend your entire life within ten miles of the place of your birth. You could do that.
But why should you have to do that?
The vehicles on the road are regulated, the drivers on the road are regulated. It's quite right & proper that the keeper of those vehicles should have to identify the driver on demand.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 14th June 21:30
safespeed said:
Chrispy Porker said:
It's not self incrimination if someone else was driving!
[...]
But the process repeats until someone is expected to self-incriiminate.[...]
It is still the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you did commit the offence.
flemke said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Why?
If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
No-one has been forced to obtain a licence, or buy a car, as far as I know.
It is a decision we all make knowing that there are numerous rules we must adhere to.
S172 is one of them.
I knew about it when I took my test and when I registered my first car.
If I had been that worried about my human rights I did not have to do either.
How is that fatuous?
It's fatuous because it reverses the rights of the person and the obligations of the authorities.If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
No-one has been forced to obtain a licence, or buy a car, as far as I know.
It is a decision we all make knowing that there are numerous rules we must adhere to.
S172 is one of them.
I knew about it when I took my test and when I registered my first car.
If I had been that worried about my human rights I did not have to do either.
How is that fatuous?
You epitomised this reversal perfectly:
Chrispy Porker said:
If you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the club.
That's the same as saying, "This is a closed shop, boy. You can't work here unless you join the union."What if you don't want to "join the club"? Suppose you just want to drive conscientiously, safely and courteously. What's wrong with that?
Sure, no one has "forced you" to get a licence. You could live a subsistence existence, grow your own vegetables, spend your entire life within ten miles of the place of your birth. You could do that.
But why should you have to do that?
You have freewill. You know the rules when you sign up to drive a car in this country. Driving is a privilege not a right. Road Traffic Legislation is not a menu from which you can pick which laws you wish to obey.
Lets face it, no-one gave a hoot about S172 until cameras came along. It is not 172 that is the problem it is the cameras.
Well the answer to that one lies beneath the right foot of each of us.
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
Chrispy Porker said:
It's not self incrimination if someone else was driving!
[...]
But the process repeats until someone is expected to self-incriiminate.[...]
It is still the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you did commit the offence.
Edited by s2art on Thursday 14th June 21:50
s2art said:
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
Chrispy Porker said:
It's not self incrimination if someone else was driving!
[...]
But the process repeats until someone is expected to self-incriiminate.[...]
It is still the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you did commit the offence.
Edited by s2art on Thursday 14th June 21:50
It is an offence to speed, but you don't have to admit that you did that (whether you did or not).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff