Discussion
Rather then hijack the PACE thread I thought I'd open a new one...
[quote=Dwight VanDriver]It is an area, as Lord Summerisle mentions, is subject to a number of appeals to the CHR as to incriminating oneself by signing the form, all are yet to be heard. Whilst one cannot prejudge the outcome there is some current evidence that through existing legislation they are non runners. [/quote]I was under the impression that there were 2 favourable judgements so far?
Details in here: http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=2845
[quote=Dwight VanDriver]It is an area, as Lord Summerisle mentions, is subject to a number of appeals to the CHR as to incriminating oneself by signing the form, all are yet to be heard. Whilst one cannot prejudge the outcome there is some current evidence that through existing legislation they are non runners. [/quote]I was under the impression that there were 2 favourable judgements so far?
Details in here: http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=2845
puggit said:
Rather then hijack the PACE thread I thought I'd open a new one...
Dwight VanDriver said:I was under the impression that there were 2 favourable judgements so far?
It is an area, as Lord Summerisle mentions, is subject to a number of appeals to the CHR as to incriminating oneself by signing the form, all are yet to be heard. Whilst one cannot prejudge the outcome there is some current evidence that through existing legislation they are non runners.
Details in here: http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=2845
What 2 are they Pugggit? I always understood that Weh v Austria was about as close as it has been run yet regarding the right not to self incriminate at 4:3. But I do find these cases a bit dry to read.
We must be reading these judgements through police coloured spectacles IaHa as that is the conclusion I came to at the end of the Weh v Austria 2004 case.
The Brown case (Scotland) held that it was in the public interest that she should be made to name herself as the driver; that information required from the reg Keeper under S 172 could not incriminate as mereley to drive a motor car was not an offence and that all who owned or drove cars had subjected themselves to a regulatory regime of which 172 was part. Human rights did not apply.
In any precedent it only covers the actual circumstances of the case i.e. should be idential to have effect. A case with almost identical facts but with a twist off can use the comments, arguments from the original case to support but at the end of the day it is the FINAL judgement that counts. The Guinness case had nothing to do with traffic whatsover.Was it not centered on finacial fiddle.
The Francis Idris case was unusual to say the least as he, quite rightly IMHO, drew attention to the fact that the provision of information under the Act made no mention of having to be signed (a requirement for a certificate to be used to identify a person as driver in proceedings). The High Court declared that it should. Where they got this from beats me except I suspect they took into account the effect this would have had if they threw the case out - almost the folding of the speed camera system with severe financial repercussions and a headache of massive proportion as to how to deal with those allready convicted.
Not mentioned in the list if I remember correctly is the ruling in the case DPP v Wilson 2002 confirmed that an admission to be the driver of a particular vehicle given in response to S 172 does not breach self incriminination under Article 6 of the European Human Convention. It did go on to say where the reliability of the admission was disputed then the judiciary OUGHT TO (note not SHOULD) exclude written evidence and require oral evidence so that it could be tested under X examination
In the fullness of time we shall see. For me it isn't S 172 that is the offender but elsewhere along the line of this procedure. I say no more.
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Wednesday 12th October 08:42
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Wednesday 12th October 08:45
The Brown case (Scotland) held that it was in the public interest that she should be made to name herself as the driver; that information required from the reg Keeper under S 172 could not incriminate as mereley to drive a motor car was not an offence and that all who owned or drove cars had subjected themselves to a regulatory regime of which 172 was part. Human rights did not apply.
In any precedent it only covers the actual circumstances of the case i.e. should be idential to have effect. A case with almost identical facts but with a twist off can use the comments, arguments from the original case to support but at the end of the day it is the FINAL judgement that counts. The Guinness case had nothing to do with traffic whatsover.Was it not centered on finacial fiddle.
The Francis Idris case was unusual to say the least as he, quite rightly IMHO, drew attention to the fact that the provision of information under the Act made no mention of having to be signed (a requirement for a certificate to be used to identify a person as driver in proceedings). The High Court declared that it should. Where they got this from beats me except I suspect they took into account the effect this would have had if they threw the case out - almost the folding of the speed camera system with severe financial repercussions and a headache of massive proportion as to how to deal with those allready convicted.
Not mentioned in the list if I remember correctly is the ruling in the case DPP v Wilson 2002 confirmed that an admission to be the driver of a particular vehicle given in response to S 172 does not breach self incriminination under Article 6 of the European Human Convention. It did go on to say where the reliability of the admission was disputed then the judiciary OUGHT TO (note not SHOULD) exclude written evidence and require oral evidence so that it could be tested under X examination
In the fullness of time we shall see. For me it isn't S 172 that is the offender but elsewhere along the line of this procedure. I say no more.
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Wednesday 12th October 08:42
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Wednesday 12th October 08:45
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff