Never felt so angry at an article...

[blindswelledrat]

spats said:

rohrl said:

Do you think that the police haven't done all this already?

That is what I was asking in essence. As I said at the end of my post, Im sure the papers gloss over the actual investigation.

Definitely, I would say. An unsolved murder is a massive negative tot he police, particularly when they know who did it.
They would have certainly tried everything to get some evidence to pinpoint one or the other of the two and this is just one of those odd cases where they failed. Whether this was ultimately down to bad luck or incompetence we will probably never know but there is no way on earth indifference has caused this lack of evidence.
Fingers crossed that something surfaces in time that nails one or both of them

[Mrr T]

La Liga said:

Mrr T said:

Its an easy change just look at s172 RTA 1988, which the ECHR has already agreed does not impinge your human rights.

You've quoted something which completely undoes your point. There are literally examples in the judgement of when article 6 has been breached by wider, direct incrimination - below the thresholds people are proposing here... It's the specificity and 'special nature' of the S.172 requirement that allows it to be compatible with article 6.

ECHR said:

62. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the special nature of the regulatory regime in issue and the limited nature of the information sought by a notice under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Court considers that the essence of the applicants’ right to remain silent and their privilege against self-incrimination has not been destroyed.

You must be joking. The judgement is a tortuous attempt at justifying the unjustifiable.

So what is the "special nature" of the scheme. The schemes involve the criminal prosecution of the offender and punishment. There is nothing in the scheme which differs from any other criminal prosecution.

As for the limited nature of the information!!! The information is sufficient for you to be found guilty of a criminal offence. That's not limited, that is the complete removal of the right to avoid self incrimination.

The fact is the judgement is deeply flawed. Its worth reading the is one dissecting judgement.

However, based on it logic it would be perfectly acceptably to introduce a law covering this case which required the parties to tell the truth or face similar punishments.

[anonymous-user]

Mrr T said:

So what is the "special nature" of the scheme. The schemes involve the criminal prosecution of the offender and punishment. There is nothing in the scheme which differs from any other criminal prosecution.

As for the limited nature of the information!!! The information is sufficient for you to be found guilty of a criminal offence. That's not limited, that is the complete removal of the right to avoid self incrimination.

It's relative. The rationale is contained within the judgement, talking of things like driving being a highly regulated activity, and only requiring a specific answer to one time and place as oppose to sustained questioning etc. I'm not repeating what is clearly written and explained.

Mrr T said:

However, based on it logic it would be perfectly acceptably to introduce a law covering this case which required the parties to tell the truth or face similar punishments.

You mean based on your logic, which is an unfounded and unjust extrapolation of a highly specific piece of legislation combined with a little 'thin end of the wedge fallacy' type thinking.

What about Saunders vs United Kingdom? That was a complex self-incrimination article 6 matter which found the circumstances breached article 6. Or do you just ignore the judgements that are referenced within O'Halloran and Francis v. the UK that undermine your theory?

[Mrr T]

La Liga said:

Mrr T said:

So what is the "special nature" of the scheme. The schemes involve the criminal prosecution of the offender and punishment. There is nothing in the scheme which differs from any other criminal prosecution.

As for the limited nature of the information!!! The information is sufficient for you to be found guilty of a criminal offence. That's not limited, that is the complete removal of the right to avoid self incrimination.

It's relative. The rationale is contained within the judgement, talking of things like driving being a highly regulated activity, and only requiring a specific answer to one time and place as oppose to sustained questioning etc. I'm not repeating what is clearly written and explained.

Mrr T said:

However, based on it logic it would be perfectly acceptably to introduce a law covering this case which required the parties to tell the truth or face similar punishments.

You mean based on your logic, which is an unfounded and unjust extrapolation of a highly specific piece of legislation combined with a little 'thin end of the wedge fallacy' type thinking.

What about Saunders vs United Kingdom? That was a complex self-incrimination article 6 matter which found the circumstances breached article 6. Or do you just ignore the judgements that are referenced within O'Halloran and Francis v. the UK that undermine your theory?

I have read the judgement and the attempts by the court to justify the decision. The fact is all of the justifications are made up, none of them rely on any thread of legal precedent.

The attempts to separate the judgement in Saunders from the judgement are a joke. The facts are so similar, requirement under law to give evidence which may include self incrimination, then evidence is used in criminal prosecution, they have to come up with a new precedent that some how motoring is different.

One reason people defend the convention, as they do the US constitution is because the rights, are clearly and simply written.

So the convention does not say you have the right to a fair trial unless you are a motorist, it does not you have a right to a reasonable fair trial. It says you have a "right to a fair trial", simple and easy to understand. It bad enough that the ECHR has decided to make the convention a "living" document but when they actually ignore the wording of the convention they prove they are not fit to sit in judgement.

Do note this type of legislation has never been introduced in the US because for all its fault the US supreme court does try to follow the constitution.

[anonymous-user]

Mrr T said:

I have read the judgement and the attempts by the court to justify the decision. The fact is all of the justifications are made up, none of them rely on any thread of legal precedent.

They nearly all cite legal principle precedents and use them to guide them to their decision-making.

O'Halloran and Francis vs the UK cites multiple, including J.B. v. Switzerland, Heaney and McGuinness, and Shannon v. the United Kingdom, John Murray v. the United Kingdom etc etc.

Are they just made-up?

Mrr T said:

The attempts to separate the judgement in Saunders from the judgement are a joke. The facts are so similar, requirement under law to give evidence which may include self incrimination, then evidence is used in criminal prosecution, they have to come up with a new precedent that some how motoring is different.

The facts are in no way so similar. You fail to grasp the differences between sustained and complex questioning and the open-ended nature of the powers within Companies Act, vs the highly limited and specific nature of the information from a S.172. The latter resides within a highly regulated context, and has the proportionality made out vs the reduction in harm. The proportionality of compelling people to answer wider-ranging questions within (or to be used within) criminal investigations, isn't made out.

Also, if you think they're saying motoring is different, then how does that mean the decision around S.172 can extrapolate across other offences in the way you propose? It's different, is it not? You're contradicting your own argument with the points you're making.

Mrr T said:

So the convention does not say you have the right to a fair trial unless you are a motorist, it does not you have a right to a reasonable fair trial. It says you have a "right to a fair trial", simple and easy to understand. It bad enough that the ECHR has decided to make the convention a "living" document but when they actually ignore the wording of the convention they prove they are not fit to sit in judgement.

The right to silence isn't absolute is what the ECHR is saying, and that only specific and atypical exemptions apply as to when it will not breach article 6.