RE: Court hears scamera case today
Discussion
Also on Sky: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0
Sky said:
If the pair win the case, it would reduce the amount of cash the Government could raise through speed camera fines.
wab172uk said:
Surely all that will happen, is the Police will just fine the registered owner.
Already happens with parking.
So what happens with company cars. Leasing company gets hit, pays fine, passes onto the the company leasing the vehicle, plus administration charge of course.
Company speak to normal driver. Not me he/she says, cycle through various possibilities why not them.
What is the company to do? Stop it from wages? Sack them?
That is before we even get to the question of points.
beermatt said:
Mrr T said:
If the case is based only on the right to silence then it will be lost. This issue was considered by the ECJ in Weh V Austria. The case tends to be ignored because it was lost but the judgement is very informative and does give clear clues that the whole system of prosecuting speeding offences using NIP will collapse.
I disagree - the Weh V Austria judgement can be viewed here. There are a few differences to the Idris case, which may (hopefully) tip the balance..
Matt.
I think you should reread my post. I am aware that Weh V Austria is very different to the current case. The reason Weh lost was that he lied on the Austria version of the NIP. But the case does give an insight into the views of the ECJ.
Which is that you do not have an absolute right to silence except with regard to your right to a fair trial. So the NIP is not in breach of your right to silence only its sole use in securing a conviction.
XTR2Turbo said:
wab172uk said:
Surely all that will happen, is the Police will just fine the registered owner. if the owner want's to contest that he/she wasn't driving at the time, you will have to go to court to prove your innocents. Thus as the Police has already stated, you go to court and lose against the Police regarding Speeding, you could be liable for costs. Could be up to £4000.
They will just scare the owner into taking the fine & points rather than potentially raking up a £4k legal bill.
They will just scare the owner into taking the fine & points rather than potentially raking up a £4k legal bill.
I think that in most European countries they use this approach to coolect fines (similar I guess to parking, Road Tax etc in the UK) but they do not use it to handout points to the driver.
Firstly the police cant 'fine' anyone. Fines are only required to be made AFTER due judicial process. Police issue fixed penalty notices, which you are not obliged to pay but may contest in court. Of course you may 'voluntarily' pay if you accept as true the reason for issue of the FPN.
Going to court, the burden of proof rests with the CPS/police to find you guilty. Currently if you fail to provide name of driver details, you are prosecuted for failing to provide under S.172 but not for the actual offence of speeding. The punishment is coincidentally the same as if found guilty of speeding in the first place though.
The key here is that, the CPS/police obviously have no proof that you were the driver and therefore guilty of speeding. BUT they are not too concerned about that. I would imagine the ability to prosecute you instead for failing to provide details of the driver is in fact another way of prosecuting the speeder, as invariably the owner and speeder are one and the same. But not always.
If you can give valid reasons for not being able to provide details of the driver i.e. you were in a coma in hospital, on your honeymoon abroad, in prison etc etc, then the court would not find against you.
The real problem with the law lies with:
1) the act requires the owner to name the driver,
2) That information, when it turns out the owner and speeder are one and the same, is usually the only evidence available pointing to whom the speeder is,
3) Using this evidence, and only this evidence, means the act allows the bypass of the right to silence and that of not incriminating oneself,
Requiring the owner to name the speeding driver is wholly acceptable.
BUT the validity of the information gained when the owner and driver are one and the same is what raises peoples shackles.
IF the owner and driver are one and the same, then SHOULD the evidence be inadmissable as it incriminates oneself
OR
Should the fact you have and know you have, committed a speeding offence, override your right to silence and self-incrimination.
Imagine the owner/driver/speeder killed a member of your family or other loved one, and the only evidence available was that of the owner giving info in resposne to S.172 that they were driving at the time.
What would you consider fair and just?
I just heard some dialog on the lunchtime R4 programme regarding this topic, firstly they had the man Idris --- who is trying to invoke the right to silence ruling via the European Court of HR. Then I heard one of those unthinking self-righteous pro-speed camera people who say they save lives etc etc, then what really annoyed me was Lady-boy the transport minister saying how he cant see how Idris can say that being threatened with £1000+ fines for not disclosing identity isn't duress ! I also think the for Ladyman to say that Mr Idris "just wants to carry on speeding" is an arrogant, ignorant and almost libelous comment.
The democracy we supposedly live in likes to have its cake and eat it, they want us to be good little boys and pay their fines with no access to any form of real justice, while they lie about the actually validity of speed cameras in the first place.
The democracy we supposedly live in likes to have its cake and eat it, they want us to be good little boys and pay their fines with no access to any form of real justice, while they lie about the actually validity of speed cameras in the first place.
swilly said:
Imagine the owner/driver/speeder killed a member of your family or other loved one, and the only evidence available was that of the owner giving info in resposne to S.172 that they were driving at the time.
What would you consider fair and just?
What would you consider fair and just?
I would expect the same as I would expect if a member of my family was killed by a nutter wielding a knife in the street. The courts (CPS) would need to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They provide evidence to do so. That is the protection of the law which we are all entitled to ensure that instant justice (which generally means no justice at all) is not handed out.
And as for the question of costs, yes, the general rule is that loser pays the winners costs. But as this is a criminal case (I think) it may be covered by legal aid (I don't know though).
Just imagine if all those hopeless people employed by the speedtrap industry had to find other employment. Where would they work, what could they do? ...clamper, traffic warden, bouncer, a bit of roadsweeping, maybe some of the more senior could brownnose their way into a local council job...
swilly said:
Imagine the owner/driver/speeder killed a member of your family or other loved one, and the only evidence available was that of the owner giving info in resposne to S.172 that they were driving at the time.
What would you consider fair and just?
Erm wasn't it the case some scrote escape such a procecution because of just that.
police caught them, but couldn't prove who the driver was and they couldn't make them fill the S172 due to them having to spend time inside if foung guilty.
Cant find the link now, but will keep looking
DJFish said:
Did anyone see that silly bint in the telly just now?
"FOR GOD'S SAKE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
IF YOU SPEED A CHILD WILL SURELY DIE!
IF YOU SPEED A CHILD WILL RUN OUT IN FRONT OF YOU!
EVERY TIME YOU SPEED GOD KILLS A KITTEN!"
]
"FOR GOD'S SAKE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
IF YOU SPEED A CHILD WILL SURELY DIE!
IF YOU SPEED A CHILD WILL RUN OUT IN FRONT OF YOU!
EVERY TIME YOU SPEED GOD KILLS A KITTEN!"
]
So by that arguement there are no cats and we can close 80% of the schools. I think I got stuck behind her the other day - god bless second cam!
jasandjules said:
swilly said:
Imagine the owner/driver/speeder killed a member of your family or other loved one, and the only evidence available was that of the owner giving info in resposne to S.172 that they were driving at the time.
What would you consider fair and just?
What would you consider fair and just?
I would expect the same as I would expect if a member of my family was killed by a nutter wielding a knife in the street. The courts (CPS) would need to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They provide evidence to do so. That is the protection of the law which we are all entitled to ensure that instant justice (which generally means no justice at all) is not handed out.
The alternative is that every murderer has to sign an S172 to say it was them (cue Life On Mars: "go on, we know you did it!" with the sound of boots hitting flesh), with the threat that if they don't they will go to court and receive a harsher penalty. Nobody would accept that it was justice, yet millions consider it right to take exactly that approach for speeding. It just shows the effects that propaganda can have on the multitudes.
Roley130 said:
I just heard some dialog on the lunchtime R4 programme regarding this topic, firstly they had the man Idris --- who is trying to invoke the right to silence ruling via the European Court of HR. Then I heard one of those unthinking self-righteous pro-speed camera people who say they save lives etc etc, then what really annoyed me was Lady-boy the transport minister saying how he cant see how Idris can say that being threatened with £1000+ fines for not disclosing identity isn't duress ! I also think the for Ladyman to say that Mr Idris "just wants to carry on speeding" is an arrogant, ignorant and almost libelous comment.
The democracy we supposedly live in likes to have its cake and eat it, they want us to be good little boys and pay their fines with no access to any form of real justice, while they lie about the actually validity of speed cameras in the first place.
The democracy we supposedly live in likes to have its cake and eat it, they want us to be good little boys and pay their fines with no access to any form of real justice, while they lie about the actually validity of speed cameras in the first place.
Idris isn't I understand too happy about that.
Sean
dickymint said:
Whats that solicitor to the rich and famous' name? Mr. loophole? Heard him stating on Radio 5 Live yesterday that they have very little chance of winning this 
something about proportianate something or other?
something about proportianate something or other? Edited by dickymint on Thursday 28th September 15:19
Proportionality was the UK's whole case...
Sean
The case against cameras may be won, but the chance of compensation would be akin to the chance of kissing the pope's chuff. A case shown today regarding a person's attempt to sue the Inland Revenue for negligence is a good example. The IR were clearly negligent and sent a person into bankrupcy because of it, however, the judge gave the IR protection to avoid the chance of thousands of others sueing the IR successfully. 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff