Right to silence
Discussion
If you receive a speeding ticket from officer in a car, gatso etc...
when you sign it your are essentially singing away your right to silence and beacause of the signature the piece of paper become inadmissable evidence...
therefore on receipt of a ticket to save incriminating one-self could you simply write something like this;
contents not accepted, receipt of ticket herein merely acknowledged (followed by name in printed letters)?
when you sign it your are essentially singing away your right to silence and beacause of the signature the piece of paper become inadmissable evidence...
therefore on receipt of a ticket to save incriminating one-self could you simply write something like this;
contents not accepted, receipt of ticket herein merely acknowledged (followed by name in printed letters)?
20vt_mk2dub said:
therefore on receipt of a ticket to save incriminating one-self could you simply write something like this;
contents not accepted, receipt of ticket herein merely acknowledged (followed by name in printed letters)?
edit - just re-read the original post and spotted the OP was talking about TrafPol stops, not NIPs from fixed scameras
ops: In short, no...
Example - Z is gatso'd and receives a Notice of Intended Prosecution. Annexed to this is a request for details of the driver at the time of the offence - a S172 form..
S172 of the Road Traffic Act states it is an offence not to disclose driver details when requested (by persons authorised to do by the Chief Constable).
S12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 then permits the use of the S172 response as admissible evidence of driver identity.
So, Z responds to the NIP and is prosecuted or Z doesn't respond to the NIP and is prosecuted.
Article 6 of the ECHR provides protection for citizens of member states against self-incrimination. But the protection is not absolute. If it can be demonstrated that any breach of the Convention is in the greater good / proportionate, then whilst it is still a breach, it is deemed an acceptable one, therefore it is not a breach..
Currently, the use of S172 and S12 is deemed a proportionate breach, hence its continued use. European decisions in similar cases have been very close to ruling otherwise though. The matter with regard to the UK will probably be sorted one way or the other in the not too distance future..
Hope that makes some sort of sense !!
>> Edited by SS2. on Saturday 11th February 17:44
It seems fair enough to have to say who was driving. As the registered keeper you're responsible for the car, and it would be absurd to be able to say "I'm not telling" if somebody uses the car to commit an offence. Saying who was driving isn't the same as admitting you're guilty of whatever they're after you for, it just means they know who to prosecute. When they prosecute you, you have the opportunity to plead guilt or innocence.
If I am suspected of committing a crime I should not be forced to admit to committing said crime.
At the moment the official line is "but driving a car isn't an offence", however current procedure is for the police to write to people who are suspected of committing an offence for which they believe they already have sufficient evidence to prove guilt (GATSO-detected offences for example) and where the only piece of the puzzle remaining is the identity of the perpetrator. In these cases I would suggest that the registered keeper is a suspect and should be afforded the same protection to a person suspected of committing a non-traffic offence, including that provided by Article 6 of the ECHR as noted by SS2 above. An even more obvious scenario would be where the S172 is sent to the RK who names someone else as the driver. Is the person named now not certainly "a suspect"?
How would the law deal with this non-motoring scenario?
Joe and Mick Smith are identical twins and are both are also well-known vandals. CCTV footage shows someone, clearly either Joe or Mick, walking down the high street smashing every shop window they pass. Should the police be able to use statutory powers to get an admission, in writing, from Joe that he was walking down the street so they can use it as evidence and convict him? After all, walking down the high street isn't an offence so why should he have a problem admitting it?
Now put Joe behind the wheel and have him smashing windows by throwing bricks from his car. What are Joe's rights now?
At the moment the official line is "but driving a car isn't an offence", however current procedure is for the police to write to people who are suspected of committing an offence for which they believe they already have sufficient evidence to prove guilt (GATSO-detected offences for example) and where the only piece of the puzzle remaining is the identity of the perpetrator. In these cases I would suggest that the registered keeper is a suspect and should be afforded the same protection to a person suspected of committing a non-traffic offence, including that provided by Article 6 of the ECHR as noted by SS2 above. An even more obvious scenario would be where the S172 is sent to the RK who names someone else as the driver. Is the person named now not certainly "a suspect"?
How would the law deal with this non-motoring scenario?
Joe and Mick Smith are identical twins and are both are also well-known vandals. CCTV footage shows someone, clearly either Joe or Mick, walking down the high street smashing every shop window they pass. Should the police be able to use statutory powers to get an admission, in writing, from Joe that he was walking down the street so they can use it as evidence and convict him? After all, walking down the high street isn't an offence so why should he have a problem admitting it?
Now put Joe behind the wheel and have him smashing windows by throwing bricks from his car. What are Joe's rights now?
MrsMiggins said:
If I am suspected of committing a crime I should not be forced to admit to committing said crime.
At the moment the official line is "but driving a car isn't an offence", however current procedure is for the police to write to people who are suspected of committing an offence for which they believe they already have sufficient evidence to prove guilt (GATSO-detected offences for example) and where the only piece of the puzzle remaining is the identity of the perpetrator. In these cases I would suggest that the registered keeper is a suspect and should be afforded the same protection to a person suspected of committing a non-traffic offence, including that provided by Article 6 of the ECHR as noted by SS2 above. An even more obvious scenario would be where the S172 is sent to the RK who names someone else as the driver. Is the person named now not certainly "a suspect"?
How would the law deal with this non-motoring scenario?
Joe and Mick Smith are identical twins and are both are also well-known vandals. CCTV footage shows someone, clearly either Joe or Mick, walking down the high street smashing every shop window they pass. Should the police be able to use statutory powers to get an admission, in writing, from Joe that he was walking down the street so they can use it as evidence and convict him? After all, walking down the high street isn't an offence so why should he have a problem admitting it?
Now put Joe behind the wheel and have him smashing windows by throwing bricks from his car. What are Joe's rights now?
And there you have it.
A damn good point well made
20vt_mk2dub said:
If you receive a speeding ticket from officer in a car, gatso etc...
when you sign it your are essentially singing away your right to silence and beacause of the signature the piece of paper become inadmissable evidence...
therefore on receipt of a ticket to save incriminating one-self could you simply write something like this;
contents not accepted, receipt of ticket herein merely acknowledged (followed by name in printed letters)?
If you are stopped and the officer decides that FPN is the way to deal with you, you have two options.
Endorsable FPN
1. Accept the FPN and surrender your driving licence to him or her. This will require you to sign the FPN as it then temporarily becomes your driving licence. The details will be transferred onto the copy of the FPN you are awarded! If you refuse to sign the FPN you are effectively failing to sign your temporary licence and therefore the officer will have to offer you your licence back and report you for the offence with an impending prosecution through summons.
2. Accept the FPN without surrendering your licence because you do not have it with you and elect to produce your licence at the station of your choice within 7 days. On attendance if you wish to accept the FPN, you will have to surrender your licence. The desk clerk will ask you to sign the FPN when they take it from you and you will be given the FPN back with your licence details written on it. If you refuse, they cannot accept your licence and you cannot be part of the FP scheme. The facts will be sent on to the officer who will proceed with a prosecution file and summons.
If you accept a FPN and sign the form, you have 28 days in which to decide how to continue. You can send off the counter slip attached to the bottom of the FPN with your cheque and in due course, your licence will return from the relevant court duely endorsed for the small cost
of £60. You can of course change your mind in those 28 days and request to be dealt with by a court. If that happens, you fill in the reverse of the FPN requesting a court hearing and your licence will be returned to you along with a summons to attend Mags Court. Signing an endorsable FPN is not an admission of guilt. If you need your licence to do something like hire a car when you have surrendered your real one to a police officer or desk clerk, you will need a substitute to do it with. The FPN endorsed with your monica will comply with the requirement to show a vailid driving licence.
Admission of guilt where a FPN is concerned is when the FP office receive your cheque for £60 within the 28 day period allowed. Any other course will result in the licence returned and a summons sent to you for your opportunity to tell the true story
>> Edited by mg6b on Sunday 12th February 17:42
I dont think its signing the FPN they object to Mg66 but signing the 172 request to name driver which is then admitted as evidence of who was driving at Court. Despite a number of High Court decisions that this has to be so the rumblings go on.
As stated Francis Idris along with some others are awaiting a decision from Brussels.
Funny but in PCN for parking the onus is on the Reg Keeper who is held responsible if driver not traced or doesn't pay. Is there a solution here I wonder?
Appreciate the step by step account on the issue of FPN.
dvd
As stated Francis Idris along with some others are awaiting a decision from Brussels.
Funny but in PCN for parking the onus is on the Reg Keeper who is held responsible if driver not traced or doesn't pay. Is there a solution here I wonder?
Appreciate the step by step account on the issue of FPN.
dvd
mg6b said:
If you are stopped and the officer decides that FPN is the way to deal with you, you have two options.
Endorsable FPN
1. Accept the FPN and surrender your driving licence to him or her. This will require you to sign the FPN as it then temporarily becomes your driving licence. The details will be transferred onto the copy of the FPN you are awarded! If you refuse to sign the FPN you are effectively failing to sign your temporary licence and therefore the officer will have to offer you your licence back and report you for the offence with an impending prosecution through summons.
2. Accept the FPN without surrendering your licence because you do not have it with you and elect to produce your licence at the station of your choice within 7 days. On attendance if you wish to accept the FPN, you will have to surrender your licence. The desk clerk will ask you to sign the FPN when they take it from you and you will be given the FPN back with your licence details written on it. If you refuse, they cannot accept your licence and you cannot be part of the FP scheme. The facts will be sent on to the officer who will proceed with a prosecution file and summons.
If you accept a FPN and sign the form, you have 28 days in which to decide how to continue. You can send off the counter slip attached to the bottom of the FPN with your cheque and in due course, your licence will return from the relevant court duely endorsed for the small cost
Signing an endorsable FPN is not an admission of guilt. If you need your licence to do something like hire a car when you have surrendered your real one to a police officer or desk clerk, you will need a substitute to do it with. The FPN endorsed with your monica will comply with the requirement to show a vailid driving licence.
Admission of guilt where a FPN is concerned is when the FP office receive your cheque for £60 within the 28 day period allowed. Any other course will result in the licence returned and a summons sent to you for your opportunity to tell the true story
>> Edited by mg6b on Sunday 12th February 17:42
Never having been the recipient of a FPN this is very informative. However, at the time of stopping, is there no choice but to accept the FPN, irrespective of whether the licence is available?
7.
>> Edited by number 7 on Monday 13th February 12:41
With regard to ECHR Article 6 the current position in the UK is that the matter was considered by the Privy Council, the appeal court for Scottish, in Brown V Stott. As the previous post suggested the decision was to reject the argument that S172 was in contravention of ECHR 6. The argument to support this is that under ECHR 6 the right to silence is only an implied right and cases is that it can be set aside for reasons of public policy. Similar cases are pending judgment from the court in Luxemburg but this could take several years.
My own view based on the past finding of the court is that the cases will succeed . The Judges in Brown V Stott seem to have misread, maybe for political reasons, the previous finding of the European Court on similar matters. They Judgment in Brown V Stott was reasonable in that the right to silence is only an implied right and that the EC has accepted the right can be limited for reasons of public policy, but the EC has been very strict in its view of how this information is used. The EC court has accepted that Governments need to obtain information from individuals some times as a matter of policy and that in limited circumstances for the public good the right of silence can be restricted. But the EC court has made clear in a number of judgments that using information gained in this way as the only evidence in a trial is in breach of ECHR 6.
So the s172 notice is not in breach of ECHR 6 but using it as the only evidence for conviction is.
My own view based on the past finding of the court is that the cases will succeed . The Judges in Brown V Stott seem to have misread, maybe for political reasons, the previous finding of the European Court on similar matters. They Judgment in Brown V Stott was reasonable in that the right to silence is only an implied right and that the EC has accepted the right can be limited for reasons of public policy, but the EC has been very strict in its view of how this information is used. The EC court has accepted that Governments need to obtain information from individuals some times as a matter of policy and that in limited circumstances for the public good the right of silence can be restricted. But the EC court has made clear in a number of judgments that using information gained in this way as the only evidence in a trial is in breach of ECHR 6.
So the s172 notice is not in breach of ECHR 6 but using it as the only evidence for conviction is.
:number 7 said:
Never having been the recipient of a FPN this is very informative. However, at the time of stopping, is there no choice but to accept the FPN, irrespective of whether the licence is available?
7.
The offer of a FPN is the choice of the officer dealing with the suspected offender.
If the officer offers a FPN as a way of proceeding with the offence, he/she will ask for your driving licence. If you do not have your licence available then you can still opt for a provisional FPN where you take your licence to the Police station within 7 days.
If you decide that you do not want to surrender your licence at the time of the stop either at the time or within 7 days, you are no longer within the scope of the FPN system and the officer will be obliged to report you for the offence (Or if you are really unlucky arrest you under SOCAP regs!)
Dwight VanDriver said:
I dont think its signing the FPN they object to Mg66 but signing the 172 request
'If you receive a speeding ticket from officer in a car, gatso etc...
when you sign it your are essentially singing away your right to silence...'
I took to mean that the ticket was exactly that. A ticket (FPN). I see where you are coming form though and totally agree with you (as always
) Dwight VanDriver said:
Appreciate the step by step account on the issue of FPN.
dvd
No probs.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff