European Grand Chamber to announce findings

[cen]

Many from this forum will be aware that a chap by the name of O'Halloran took a case to Europe for interpretation to EU law against UK law in that of S.172 Road Traffic Act.

The Grand Chamber will be announcing their verdict at the end of this month. Hopefully they will find the UK in breach of EU law and the UK will have to fork out millions in compensation to motorists who, used Article 6 ECHR in their defence but were retrospectively convicted under UK law.

Again if the Grand Chamber rule in O'H's favour then the courts will need to recognise that using S172 will no longer be permitted with it being a criminal offence and that requesting information that would incriminate would no longer be permitted in criminal charges.

[Bing o]

shame it won't happen.

the EHCR will rule that the right of the government to enforce speed limits is sufficiently greater than the individuals right to silence.

and no, I don't like it either....

[GPSHead]

Bing o said:

shame it won't happen.

the EHCR will rule that the right of the government to enforce speed limits is sufficiently greater than the individuals right to silence.

and no, I don't like it either....

But they would still be able to enforce speed limits, they'd just have to do it in a similar way to other European countries.

[Bing o]

...but it would negate all speed cameras as you would just not sign the S172...

(This is not a Bad Thing)

[safespeed]

cen said:

Many from this forum will be aware that a chap by the name of O'Halloran took a case to Europe for interpretation to EU law against UK law in that of S.172 Road Traffic Act.

The Grand Chamber will be announcing their verdict at the end of this month. Hopefully they will find the UK in breach of EU law and the UK will have to fork out millions in compensation to motorists who, used Article 6 ECHR in their defence but were retrospectively convicted under UK law.

Again if the Grand Chamber rule in O'H's favour then the courts will need to recognise that using S172 will no longer be permitted with it being a criminal offence and that requesting information that would incriminate would no longer be permitted in criminal charges.

The decision in Francis and O'Halloran -v- UK is due in Strasborg at 9:30am local time (8:30am UK time) on Friday 29th June. Mr Francis and I are arranging a London press conference. As far as I can tell, the majority of legal opinion backs Francis and O'Halloran to win. It's also very hard to see why (say) an Austrian judge should or could be swayed by the UK government.

The decision falls at the end of Safe Speed's 'Scrap Speed Cameras Week'.



I'm still looking for helpers and funding for Scrap Speed Cameras Week.
See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html

And see the petition at: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/scrapcam

[NobleGuy]

I can see how the innocent until proven guilty method of speed enforcement could sit uneasily with a group of eminent judges. I'd be surprised if they upheld S172 on the basis that it's simply unfair and goes against all established prosecution norms.

Not that I'm biased at all!

Edited by NobleGuy on Wednesday 13th June 14:36

[Puggit]

What exactly took them so long? Wasn't the case heard in Sept 2006?

[Parrot of Doom]

NobleGuy said:

I can see how the innocent until proven guilty method of speed enforcement could sit uneasily with a group of eminent judges. I'd be surprised if they upheld S172 on the basis that it's simply unfair and goes against all established prosecution norms.

Not that I'm biased at all!

Edited by NobleGuy on Wednesday 13th June 14:36

I wouldn't place too much faith in a system that sacked the accountant who refused to sign off the EU accounts due to 'irregularities', and who have constantly delayed her tribunal case.

[s2art]

Parrot of Doom said:

NobleGuy said:

I can see how the innocent until proven guilty method of speed enforcement could sit uneasily with a group of eminent judges. I'd be surprised if they upheld S172 on the basis that it's simply unfair and goes against all established prosecution norms.

Not that I'm biased at all!

Edited by NobleGuy on Wednesday 13th June 14:36

I wouldn't place too much faith in a system that sacked the accountant who refused to sign off the EU accounts due to 'irregularities', and who have constantly delayed her tribunal case.

Not the same bunch. So there is hope.

[Chrispy Porker]

Puggit said:

What exactly took them so long? Wasn't the case heard in Sept 2006?

The law has been around since 1972, at least!

[Chrispy Porker]

Puggit said:

What exactly took them so long? Wasn't the case heard in Sept 2006?

The law has been around since 1972, at least!

[esselte]

Have you a problem CP? You seem to be repeating yourself rather a lot this evening...

[SS2.]

FishFace said:

It won't be overruled, which is a good thing for the bigger picture of law enforcement,..

Out of interest, why do you think its 'a good thing' to allow (admissible) evidence to be obtained under threat of further criminal sanction ?

[Chrispy Porker]

esselte said:

Have you a problem CP? You seem to be repeating yourself rather a lot this evening...

I think my keyboard has been on the sauce.

[Chrispy Porker]

There, that's fixed it.

[esselte]

Chrispy Porker said:

There, that's fixed it.

[g_attrill]

Puggit said:

What exactly took them so long? Wasn't the case heard in Sept 2006?

This particular case has been rumbling on for a long time, the alleged offences date from 2000/2001 and the applications were made in Nov 2001 and April 2002.

[s2art]

FishFace said:

SS2. said:

FishFace said:

It won't be overruled, which is a good thing for the bigger picture of law enforcement,..

Out of interest, why do you think its 'a good thing' to allow (admissible) evidence to be obtained under threat of further criminal sanction ?

Because I think it's quite a good thing that people who fail to stop at accidents have to name the driver who did it. Plus the entire range of road traffic offences this can be used in.

Why do you think that in Germany you are not obliged to self-incriminate OR incriminate a close relative? (cant remember how close, certainly wife/husband)

[SS2.]

FishFace said:

SS2. said:

FishFace said:

It won't be overruled, which is a good thing for the bigger picture of law enforcement,..

Out of interest, why do you think its 'a good thing' to allow (admissible) evidence to be obtained under threat of further criminal sanction ?

Because I think it's quite a good thing that people who fail to stop at accidents have to name the driver who did it. Plus the entire range of road traffic offences this can be used in.

If obtaining a confession under compulsion is such a good thing, why did the UK government re-write other legislation (not the RTA) in the aftermath of 'Saunders' to specifically preclude evidence obtained in such a manner being used as part of the prosecution case ?

And if it is such a good thing, why has it stopped at just motoring offences ? Why hasn't the government introduced similar powers for more serious crimes ?

[delta2]

FishFace said:

However, S172 is a very specific bit of legislation that needs to be viewed in context. The public interest (not of people who cry over getting caught speeding) and legitimate legal aim outweigh the interference and duress.

Maybe you also agree with locking people up without a trial too? If it suits your "legitimate legal aims"......