European Grand Chamber to announce findings
Discussion
vonhosen said:
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).
If you know damn well you were speeding and are confident that the evidence gathered will show that the vehicle was indeed above the speed limit, then being forced to admit you were driving is being forced to self incriminate. Right?
Edited by s2art on Thursday 14th June 21:58
Chrispy Porker said:
flemke said:
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 don't.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.
Yes, you have free will - WITHIN THE RANGE OF THOSE THINGS THAT THE STATE ALLOWS YOU TO DO.
You have free will in prison too - you can eat all of what's on offer, you can eat none, you can sleep at night, you can lie awake, et al. But you cannot walk out the front gate.
You assert the old saw that "driving is a privilege not a right". Yet the very first, primary definition of "privilege" is:
a right, advantage or immunity...
(Oxford Reference Dictionary)
Could you tell us in whom inheres the right to grant us teeming masses the "privilege" to drive? I don't ask who has the power - we know the answer to that one.
Who should have the right to grant that "privilege"?
Cheers.
Chrispy Porker said:
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, yes and no. Section 172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act was, at the time of its introduction, a latent piece of legislation that was written (arguably quite specifically) to help facilitate the future semi-automation of traffic offence processing. A Police Officer who pulls a vehicle over is unlikely to need S172 to assist in identification of the driver at the wheel. Certainly prior to the exponential expansion of the speed camera network, S172 remained relatively innocuous.S172 may be regarded by most as nothing more than Government-sponsored coercion but it is a critical component of the current "conveyor-belt" justice system. Without it the whole SCP industry would collapse.
Chrispy Porker said:
Well the answer to that one lies beneath the right foot of each of us.
I suggest the answer lies with a long overdue re-assessment of the value in detecting and pursuing speeding violations on an industrial scale. Inspector Malcolm Collis of Thames Valley Police declared in November 2002 that over 10 million speed limit violations were being committed every day in the UK. If exceeding the speed limit is as dangerous as the Government (along with their diverse array of "useful idiots" ) would have us believe then, with some 3.65 billion violations occurring per annum, it is amazing that here - in mid-2007 - we find anyone left alive in this green and pleasant land.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.
I think the identification of the driver is the single most important component of the evidence.
Deadly Dog said:
Chrispy Porker said:
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, yes and no. Section 172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act was, at the time of its introduction, a latent piece of legislation that was written (arguably quite specifically) to help facilitate the future semi-automation of traffic offence processing. A Police Officer who pulls a vehicle over is unlikely to need S172 to assist in identification of the driver at the wheel. Certainly prior to the exponential expansion of the speed camera network, S172 remained relatively innocuous.Sec 172 is not confined to & used for only speeding offences.
safespeed 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.
I think the identification of the driver is the single most important component of the evidence.
That's when the fun will start, until then it's all Pie in the sky.
One thing I will wager, is that it won't mean the end of cameras.
(It might mean more of them though.)
flemke said:
Chrispy Porker said:
flemke said:
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 don't.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.
Yes, you have free will - WITHIN THE RANGE OF THOSE THINGS THAT THE STATE ALLOWS YOU TO DO.
You have free will in prison too - you can eat all of what's on offer, you can eat none, you can sleep at night, you can lie awake, et al. But you cannot walk out the front gate.
You assert the old saw that "driving is a privilege not a right". Yet the very first, primary definition of "privilege" is:
a right, advantage or immunity...
(Oxford Reference Dictionary)
Could you tell us in whom inheres the right to grant us teeming masses the "privilege" to drive? I don't ask who has the power - we know the answer to that one.
Who should have the right to grant that "privilege"?
Cheers.
Boosted.
vonhosen said:
Deadly Dog said:
Chrispy Porker said:
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, yes and no. Section 172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act was, at the time of its introduction, a latent piece of legislation that was written (arguably quite specifically) to help facilitate the future semi-automation of traffic offence processing. A Police Officer who pulls a vehicle over is unlikely to need S172 to assist in identification of the driver at the wheel. Certainly prior to the exponential expansion of the speed camera network, S172 remained relatively innocuous.Sec 172 is not confined to & used for only speeding offences.
Whatever the original intent, as a result of its blatant and wholesale abuse by the speed trap industry, S172 has become totally discredited in the eyes of many and now faces its ultimate showdown in the European courts. Perhaps if your Lords and Masters had exercised a bit more discretion with its use in the first place, we wouldn't be in this sorry mess.
Edited by Deadly Dog on Friday 15th June 00:03
vonhosen said:
safespeed 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.
I think the identification of the driver is the single most important component of the evidence.
That's when the fun will start, until then it's all Pie in the sky.
One thing I will wager, is that it won't mean the end of cameras.
(It might mean more of them though.)
The thing that will bring down cameras is that they simply don't make the roads safer.
But the ECHR case may well get them turned off for a while.
FishFace said:
Principles of law can't be stubon and rigid across the board when they are necessary and proportional in their aim. It's as simple as that.
Enforcing trivial traffic laws is utterly unimportant compared to protecting fundamental rights and freedoms.S172 is evil and entirely disproportionate.
I hope that the fall of S172 is just the beginning of the end for the rather unpleasant totalitarian law enforcement culture being foisted upon us by ACPO and their masters.
fluffnik said:
FishFace said:
Principles of law can't be stubon and rigid across the board when they are necessary and proportional in their aim. It's as simple as that.
Enforcing trivial traffic laws is utterly unimportant compared to protecting fundamental rights and freedoms.S172 is evil and entirely disproportionate.
I hope that the fall of S172 is just the beginning of the end for the rather unpleasant totalitarian law enforcement culture being foisted upon us by ACPO and their masters.
Surely this will just encourage the less reputable not to stop as it will be common knowledge that you cannot be traced afterwards?
Particularly with company/fleet/hire vehicles I would suggest.
Motorcycle News recently reported that NIPs are now being issued by some forces without mentioning the alleged speed. I wondered if this recent change might be because the govt might have recently learned - in advance of the public announcement due in two weeks - that they had lost O'Halloran & Francis vs UK. Maybe the govt thinks it can get round the dilemma discussed at length on this thread by failing to mention the speed when it sends out NIPs. That way, the NIP is arguably just an innocent request to name the driver, with no implied consequent prosecution for speeding.
It's a bit of a fudge of course, but if as I suspect and hope the govt knows it has lost, it might bring in fudges like leaving the speed off the NIP as a stop-gap measure until perhaps some new legislation can be brought in, perhaps along the lines of making speeding a civil offence, with a lower burden of proof.
(I was found Guilty a couple of weeks ago, after pleading NG on the basis of the HR Act, and have a few days left in which to appeal)
It's a bit of a fudge of course, but if as I suspect and hope the govt knows it has lost, it might bring in fudges like leaving the speed off the NIP as a stop-gap measure until perhaps some new legislation can be brought in, perhaps along the lines of making speeding a civil offence, with a lower burden of proof.
(I was found Guilty a couple of weeks ago, after pleading NG on the basis of the HR Act, and have a few days left in which to appeal)
SpitfireTriple said:
Motorcycle News recently reported that NIPs are now being issued by some forces without mentioning the alleged speed. I wondered if this recent change might be because the govt might have recently learned - in advance of the public announcement due in two weeks - that they had lost O'Halloran & Francis vs UK. Maybe the govt thinks it can get round the dilemma discussed at length on this thread by failing to mention the speed when it sends out NIPs. That way, the NIP is arguably just an innocent request to name the driver, with no implied consequent prosecution for speeding.
If the government is asking who was driving, then shouldn't they have to tell you what they are asking in relation to?!? I wouldn't just give someone (anyone) personal information without knowing the purpose it was going to be put to.And anyway, it's clearly never going to be an 'innocent' request, is it?!?
vonhosen said:
Admitting you are driving is not admitting the offence.
It is still the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you did commit the offence.
But it's not in practise is it Von?It is still the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you did commit the offence.
The accused is told that they have been speeding. In many cases they are told that they have the option of taking a fixed penalty, or face an increased fine and costs in court. They will not be able to see any evidence against them until they plead not guilty. Quite often, even this will be a struggle to obtain.
There is nothing Just about the application of these laws.
I would have less of an issue with scameras if you got sent an evidence bundle with the NIP, showing the calibration certs, operator logbook, and enough of the video to at least be able the accused to make a reasonable assessment of the voracity of any case.
I wouldn't plead guilty to rape or murder without full sight of the prosecution evidence, why should speeding be any different?
Your'e not being asked to plead.
You are bring asked who was driving your vehicle when an alleged offence occured.
Think of it this way.
Someone borrows your car with your permission, or even without, it matters not, and is involved in an accident, where someone is injured or another car is damaged, at which they do not stop.
The Police ask you who was driving at the time.
Is that unreasonable?
If you were injured or your car were damaged by a fail to stop driver, would you want the police to have the power to require the keeper to assist tracing the driver or not.?
If no, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
You are bring asked who was driving your vehicle when an alleged offence occured.
Think of it this way.
Someone borrows your car with your permission, or even without, it matters not, and is involved in an accident, where someone is injured or another car is damaged, at which they do not stop.
The Police ask you who was driving at the time.
Is that unreasonable?
If you were injured or your car were damaged by a fail to stop driver, would you want the police to have the power to require the keeper to assist tracing the driver or not.?
If no, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
Chrispy Porker said:
Think of it this way.
Someone borrows your car with your permission, or even without, it matters not, and is involved in an accident, where someone is injured or another car is damaged, at which they do not stop.
The Police ask you who was driving at the time.
Is that unreasonable?
Not unreasonable to ask,unreasonable to be prosecuted for not telling.....Someone borrows your car with your permission, or even without, it matters not, and is involved in an accident, where someone is injured or another car is damaged, at which they do not stop.
The Police ask you who was driving at the time.
Is that unreasonable?
Chrispy Porker said:
Think of it this way.
Someone borrows your car with your permission, or even without, it matters not, and is involved in an accident, where someone is injured or another car is damaged, at which they do not stop.
The Police ask you who was driving at the time.
Is that unreasonable?
That's not the same thing at all.Someone borrows your car with your permission, or even without, it matters not, and is involved in an accident, where someone is injured or another car is damaged, at which they do not stop.
The Police ask you who was driving at the time.
Is that unreasonable?
By telling them that someone else was driving the car, you are not incriminating yourself. You are providing a statement that someone else was driving.
Imagine if it worked in a similar way for other offences.
A person was stabbed, and the offence is murder.
A letter arrives, asking you "Provide details of the person who was holding the knife at the time the alleged murder took place".
In law, nobody would be forced to answer "I was holding the knife" (thereby incriminating yourself), but would quite happily answer "I wasn't but I know who was" (Thereby providing a statement)
What's the difference between this (hypothetical) scenario, and a S172 request for driver details at the time of an alleged speeding offence? If it was you, you have just incriminated yourself.....
esselte said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Think of it this way.
Someone borrows your car with your permission, or even without, it matters not, and is involved in an accident, where someone is injured or another car is damaged, at which they do not stop.
The Police ask you who was driving at the time.
Is that unreasonable?
Not unreasonable to ask,unreasonable to be prosecuted for not telling.....Someone borrows your car with your permission, or even without, it matters not, and is involved in an accident, where someone is injured or another car is damaged, at which they do not stop.
The Police ask you who was driving at the time.
Is that unreasonable?
- we don't require the driver to incriminate HIMSELF (and)
- we don't twist these principles simply to make mass prosecution easy
Unfortunately recent widespread use of S172 violates both.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff