European Grand Chamber to announce findings
Discussion
Chrispy Porker said:
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 ?
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 ?
Choice of two boxes to tick on 172:
A) Driver was ___, or
B. Driver's identity is either unknown or was self.
If a third party were driving, and you were aware of identity, then you would be required to reveal name. Failure to reveal would be Contempt, PCJ, whatever.
Successful prosecution for failure to reveal would depend on Crown's ability to make the positive case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you did in fact know identity of third party but purposefully chose not to reveal.
In other words, it should be handled like every other form of prosecution.
Alice Cupra 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?
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.....
Just as in the same way, admitting being the driver of a car at a material time is not admitting that you have committed the offence.
Many people have admitted being the driver at the material time, and gone on to deny committing any offence.
At least one celebrated thread on this site proves that.
Even if you HAVE committed the offence and you know it, you can still ask the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Do you agree that if you were run over by a hire car, the hire company should have to tell the police who had hired it?
If so, you see the need for S172.
Bing o said:
If they fail to stop why do you think they would complete the S172 (assuming that the driver could even be traced)?
I'd rather have trafpol on the scene, tracking the offenders car down, rather than posting out letters asking the nice criminal if he knew who was driving.
I am assuming the driver and the keeper are not one and the same. As I said 'someone borrows your car.......'I'd rather have trafpol on the scene, tracking the offenders car down, rather than posting out letters asking the nice criminal if he knew who was driving.
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?
Any thing to do with cameras? Of course it is.
But by doing away with S172 you will really hamper investigations into far more serious offences, as well.
I find it hard to believe that car enthusiasts want to make it easier for people who leave the scene of accidents to get away with it! That is what really concerns me.
And for that reason I think S172 will be found to be proportional and therefore legal. I may well be proved wrong. who knows.
Is there a book open anywhere?
Chrispy Porker said:
Do you agree that if you were run over by a hire car, the hire company should have to tell the police who had hired it?
If so, you see the need for S172.
But again, I refer to my point that the Hire Company will not be incriminating themselves by stating who was driving......If so, you see the need for S172.
I don't dispute that S172 has it uses. I just don't believe that using it to send out FPNs with the thinly veiled threat that "you can go to court but will get a higher penalty" for alleged Speeding offences caught on camera is where it should be used.
(And as an aside, I used the knife scenario purely due to the fact that I believe there was an (in)famous quote from an SCP bod who stated that "Drifting over the speed limit is no different to drifting a knife into someone"!)
Chrispy Porker said:
...Many people have admitted being the driver at the material time, and gone on to deny committing any offence.
At least one celebrated thread on this site proves that....
Yes, and how much hassle, stress and cost has he had in the year since!!!At least one celebrated thread on this site proves that....
Of course, using the murder simile, admitting to holding a knife does not equate to admitting murder.
However, being legally forced into admitting you were holding the murder weapon at the exact time and place the murder was committed is tantamount to incriminating yourself.
Indeed, if that type of evidence was put forward although inocent until proven guilty - the defence would have a hard job proving otherwise! But... at least the legal fees would be paid for.
I dont think anyone objects to S172 to catch real criminals, but it has got perverted to mass convict speeders.
And what happens in the same celebrated Peter Ward case you mention?
After being forced by the police (by proxy) to admit he was driving the car at the time, he has tried to defend himself in an honest way, and has been given the runaround so much that to continue to protest his innocence has already cost him £2000 and the risk of the same cost again added.
That is no type of justice.
flemke said:
Chrispy Porker said:
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 ?
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 ?
Choice of two boxes to tick on 172:
A) Driver was ___, or
B. Driver's identity is either unknown or was self.
If a third party were driving, and you were aware of identity, then you would be required to reveal name. Failure to reveal would be Contempt, PCJ, whatever.
Successful prosecution for failure to reveal would depend on Crown's ability to make the positive case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you did in fact know identity of third party but purposefully chose not to reveal.
In other words, it should be handled like every other form of prosecution.
I don't see the difference.
The HRA case I believe hangs on self incrimination. My points are
1. we need this section to deal with FTS offences and in my view it is proportional.
2. Admitting being the driver is not incriminating,admitting the offence is.
I can't put it more simply than that I am afraid
JustinP1 said:
Chrispy Porker said:
...Many people have admitted being the driver at the material time, and gone on to deny committing any offence.
At least one celebrated thread on this site proves that....
Yes, and how much hassle, stress and cost has he had in the year since!!!At least one celebrated thread on this site proves that....
Of course, using the murder simile, admitting to holding a knife does not equate to admitting murder.
However, being legally forced into admitting you were holding the murder weapon at the exact time and place the murder was committed is tantamount to incriminating yourself.
Indeed, if that type of evidence was put forward although inocent until proven guilty - the defence would have a hard job proving otherwise! But... at least the legal fees would be paid for.
I dont think anyone objects to S172 to catch real criminals, but it has got perverted to mass convict speeders.
And what happens in the same celebrated Peter Ward case you mention?
After being forced by the police (by proxy) to admit he was driving the car at the time, he has tried to defend himself in an honest way, and has been given the runaround so much that to continue to protest his innocence has already cost him £2000 and the risk of the same cost again added.
That is no type of justice.
Problem is therefore, that people are happy for 'real criminals' to have their human rights infringed but not people who set off speed cameras.
The logic of that is where the penalty is greater, you have LESS human rights protection. Bit odd.
Chrispy Porker said:
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?
Chrispy Porker said:
Problem is therefore, that people are happy for 'real criminals' to have their human rights infringed but not people who set off speed cameras.
How's that then?If I commit a murder I don't have to admit it neither does anyone who knew I did it have to dob me in.....I'm confused as to how my human rights are infringed in this situation...or am I missing something?
esselte said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Problem is therefore, that people are happy for 'real criminals' to have their human rights infringed but not people who set off speed cameras.
How's that then?If I commit a murder I don't have to admit it neither does anyone who knew I did it have to dob me in.....I'm confused as to how my human rights are infringed in this situation...or am I missing something?hence my comment.
Shall we adjourn 'til after the verdict?
This could go on all weekend otherwise, and I have much better things to do. ( No offence)
Chrispy Porker said:
esselte said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Problem is therefore, that people are happy for 'real criminals' to have their human rights infringed but not people who set off speed cameras.
How's that then?If I commit a murder I don't have to admit it neither does anyone who knew I did it have to dob me in.....I'm confused as to how my human rights are infringed in this situation...or am I missing something?hence my comment.
Shall we adjourn 'til after the verdict?
This could go on all weekend otherwise, and I have much better things to do. ( No offence)
Chrispy Porker said:
flemke said:
Chrispy Porker said:
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 ?
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 ?
Choice of two boxes to tick on 172:
A) Driver was ___, or
B. Driver's identity is either unknown or was self.
If a third party were driving, and you were aware of identity, then you would be required to reveal name. Failure to reveal would be Contempt, PCJ, whatever.
Successful prosecution for failure to reveal would depend on Crown's ability to make the positive case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you did in fact know identity of third party but purposefully chose not to reveal.
In other words, it should be handled like every other form of prosecution.
I don't see the difference.
The HRA case I believe hangs on self incrimination. My points are
1. we need this section to deal with FTS offences and in my view it is proportional.
2. Admitting being the driver is not incriminating,admitting the offence is.
I can't put it more simply than that I am afraid
The SCPs seek proudly to proclaim that their equipment is always accurate and infallible. If it were infallible, then admitting being the driver would indeed be admitting to the offence.
Perhaps the dilemma here is that speeding is an absolute offence, with no requirement for the prosecution to demonstrate intention - unlike most other sorts of offences. This surely is at the heart of why many people feel that being forced to put their own names forward as having in all probability committed an offence that they did not intend to commit and did not know that they were committing seems quite unfair.
Chrispy Porker said:
I find it hard to believe that car enthusiasts want to make it easier for people who leave the scene of accidents to get away with it! That is what really concerns me.
Do you honestly think somebody who flees an accident is going to fill in an S172 an place himself at the sceen?If the request goes to a friend do you believe the will grass up a mate.
The only people getting caught by S172 is the generally honest person who happens to commit the worlds greatest crime of speeding,not drink driving or dangerous driving or anything else.I wager more S172 requests are sent to speeders than everything else combined
The cameras need to go and trafpol need to be returned
Chrispy Porker said:
esselte said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Problem is therefore, that people are happy for 'real criminals' to have their human rights infringed but not people who set off speed cameras.
How's that then?If I commit a murder I don't have to admit it neither does anyone who knew I did it have to dob me in.....I'm confused as to how my human rights are infringed in this situation...or am I missing something?hence my comment.
Shall we adjourn 'til after the verdict?
This could go on all weekend otherwise, and I have much better things to do. ( No offence)
However, in this scenario I am sure this would not be done with a letter, it would be done in an interview or under caution!
My gripe is that the same procedure is perverted and used as a mass-conviction technique for alleged speeders.
Section 172 (or equivalent) has been around since the 1930s. It was introduced when remote detection and automated enforcement of speeding law was unimaginable and (I would guess) was a response to hit and run offences. So - it's not s.172 that's the problem.
The piece of law that underpins speed camera enforcement is s.12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. That is what allows the written (self-incriminating) response to a written s.172 request to be used in evidence (although only for summary offences).
Curiously, although s.12 arrived in 1988, it was not until 1991 that ss.172 (7) RTA 1988 (the section that specifically authorises a written s.172 request) was inserted by s.21 RTA 1991 - three years after it appears to have been contemplated by s.12 RTOA (and note this coincides qute precisely with the introduction of speed cameras).
The piece of law that underpins speed camera enforcement is s.12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. That is what allows the written (self-incriminating) response to a written s.172 request to be used in evidence (although only for summary offences).
Curiously, although s.12 arrived in 1988, it was not until 1991 that ss.172 (7) RTA 1988 (the section that specifically authorises a written s.172 request) was inserted by s.21 RTA 1991 - three years after it appears to have been contemplated by s.12 RTOA (and note this coincides qute precisely with the introduction of speed cameras).
pies said:
Chrispy Porker said:
I find it hard to believe that car enthusiasts want to make it easier for people who leave the scene of accidents to get away with it! That is what really concerns me.
Do you honestly think somebody who flees an accident is going to fill in an S172 an place himself at the sceen?If the request goes to a friend do you believe the will grass up a mate.
The only people getting caught by S172 is the generally honest person who happens to commit the worlds greatest crime of speeding,not drink driving or dangerous driving or anything else.I wager more S172 requests are sent to speeders than everything else combined
The cameras need to go and trafpol need to be returned
Observer2 said:
That's not really the point, is it. Imagine your <child/aged aunt/whoever> is run down on a pedestrian crossing by a vehicle wearing the livery of <the local builder/whatever>. would you want the police to have the power to require the RK (who can be identified) to help identify the driver on that occasion or are you comfortable that he should be able to shield, with impunity, that driver?
But that's not really the point, either.People do not resent the application of 172 and the principle behind it when actual harm has been done.
We resent its application when no harm has been - which nowadays would be 99% of the time that the authorities exploit it - but responding to the request will get you in trouble nonetheless.
Observer2 said:
That's not really the point, is it. Imagine your <child/aged aunt/whoever> is run down on a pedestrian crossing by a vehicle wearing the livery of <the local builder/whatever>. would you want the police to have the power to require the RK (who can be identified) to help identify the driver on that occasion or are you comfortable that he should be able to shield, with impunity, that driver?
I would rather "that he should be able to shield, with impunity, that driver" than have his, and thus my, right not to self incriminate eroded.The real question is:
"Am I willing to surrender my rights and freedoms now so that it is easier to bust some hypothetical 'bad guy' in the future?"
My answer is a resounding NO!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff