S 172 conviction - truly shafted !
Discussion
lunarscope said:
Also, the ECHR has already ruled on a test case (can't remember exact details but it's on Pepipoo) that the right to silence and non self-incrimination is enshrined in law
Yes. If we don't sign we're assumed to be guilty. That's like assuming the self-incrimination rule for motorists is only there because enforcing the road traffic act(s) these days is more about revenue than anything else. Like assuming that the BiB can't be @rsed to investigate anything traffic-related, or would be as hopeless at it as they are at stemming the rising tide of property and violent crime. Now who would assume all that?
If you are driving safely on today's roads you will be criminalised because the law has been reduced to numbers and because you are forced to incriminate yourself. Both elements of this sad sorry state of affairs are totally unjustifiable.
The usual footnote - this is not a personal attack at PH's BiBs, just as I'm sure comments from BiB aren't personal attacks on others.
hertsbiker said:
so the law should feel truly satisfied that 'justice' has been done? no wonder people are beginning to say they won't help the Police anymore. Terribly sad day for the country.
Although I have lost all respect for the Justice system, I would still help the Police if required.
However, the last time I reported a scrote smashing a 'phone box, I made a statement to the Police (after much persuasion as I didn't think it would do much good) and I didn't hear any more. As I was the only witness to this crime, I suppose my word alone didn't count for much. BTW, the 16 year old scrote is a neighbour and is visited by the BiB at least once a week.
Also, the Police CID didn't help my brother much when he was hospitalised by a thug and then threatened with violence (to himself and family) unless he dropped the charges.
The CID tried to persuade him to continue but the only suggestion they could make for his safety was to ask him if he was prepared to leave the area ! (where he and all his family has lived all their lives). Justice is a joke in this country and the experienced BiB I know think the same.
Society doesn't create criminals, but it may allow criminal tendencies to flourish.
lunarscope said:
Dec - Received letter saying "signature required" as decided by Broomfield case and Offer of Fixed Penalty.
March - Received letter asking for NIP to be signed (also mentions FP offer).
April - Received summons for Speeding and S172.
Out of interest, I know there's no time limit on issuing summons after the case has be 'laid' but is there an average time for summons to be issued?
>> Edited by wanty1974 on Friday 27th August 11:46
wanty1974 said:
Dec - Received letter saying "signature required" as decided by Broomfield case and Offer of Fixed Penalty.
March - Received letter asking for NIP to be signed (also mentions FP offer).
April - Received summons for Speeding and S172.
Out of interest, I know there's no time limit on issuing summons after the case has be 'laid' but is there an average time for summons to be issued?
>> Edited by wanty1974 on Friday 27th August 11:46
I believe there is a 'limit' (2 years or so) after when "abuse of process" can be argued.
Streetcop said:
He 'tried it on' and lost...
He fought the law and the law won...
I do however, wish the system would deal with scum in such a way though..
Street
I am sure a flippant comment but one I take offence to. The law is a system of rules by which society decides to organise itself. It is a central tenant of any law that its application should benefit the society. So someone got caught for a speeding offence, am I and society saver in my bed or on the road because of this, no, just another normally law abiding citizen who gets caught by an arbitrary limit and is only found guilty because of a fundamental breach of his human rights. The law did not win here the rule of law and society’s acceptance of the system of justice was just further eroded.
gemini said:
Now as a business man you should know better
There is a set budget to play with - more clerical time in ASU departments such as Dealing with NIP's means less money to spend on the road cop the CID etc.
What goes around comes around - Im sorry but its a fact
I disagree here. My local scamership is making so much money they can't find enough places to spend it, so are handing annual surpluses over to the Treasury. Accordingly, no matter how much civi-administrators time is taken up dealing with unclear areas of law, if the the scamera partnership wanted to spend more on road policing they have the surplus funds to do so.
The scamerahips can only spend their surpluses on road safety related works, they cannot subsidise other areas of policing so I don't see how any of the above effects the budgets of the CID.
DAZ ;
dazren said:
Now as a business man you should know better
There is a set budget to play with - more clerical time in ASU departments such as Dealing with NIP's means less money to spend on the road cop the CID etc.
What goes around comes around - Im sorry but its a fact
I disagree here. My local scamership is making so much money they can't find enough places to spend it, so are handing annual surpluses over to the Treasury. Accordingly, no matter how much civi-administrators time is taken up dealing with unclear areas of law, if the the scamera partnership wanted to spend more on road policing they have the surplus funds to do so.
The scamerahips can only spend their surpluses on road safety related works, they cannot subsidise other areas of policing so I don't see how any of the above effects the budgets of the CID.
DAZ ;
Daz,
I think you'll find that it's far worse than that.
The 'Safety' Camera Partnerships are allowed to spend the money on speed-detection road safety only.
They cannot spend a penny on improving road junctions, blind corners, dodgy surfaces, etc.
dazren said:
Although filling out the drivers details he didn't sign the NIP. Without the signature the document is not admissable in court. This was the basis of the recent Idris Francis Case in the European courts.
By not signing, the scamera partnership argued that the registerred keeper had failed to meet his legal obligation, so goes for the failure to complete route rather than the speeding conviction route. Interestingly no where in statute law does it say you must sign the form.
DAZ
Ps - For details of the Idris Francis case take a look at
<a href="http://www.abd.org.uk">www.abd.org.uk</a>
and do a search on "right to silence"
>> Edited by dazren on Thursday 26th August 19:14
Idris has not been to the European courts. When he does - we expect a somewhat different result. Rather that the complete load of bollocks that the Judges in the high court came up with.
Sean
Lunarscope,
IMHO you're going to get your money back, possibly with compensation when the ECHR overturns this stupid ruling. It is everyones right to remain silent. Steamrollering the section 172 legislation over motorists will in my opinion backfire in the governments face. Take a look at the abd website, and get yourself registered.
quote from the abd website
If you have incurred within the last 6 months penalties under S172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, either by incriminating yourself or by refusing to do so, whether for speed camera or other offences, you may be eligible as a 'victim' of this unfair law, to make an application to the ECHR for removal of the penalties and/or compensation. Contrary to previous information here, it is not possible for new applicants to 'join' an existing application, as all such applications must be made by individuals. We are however looking urgently for a small number of additional cases to take to the ECHR where:
(a) anyone has been charged with refusing to identify the driver, has pleaded 'not guilty' on the grounds that S172 is invalid, and has been found guilty within the last 6 months.
and
(b) anyone, who prosecuted in court, pleaded 'not guilty' on the grounds that the only evidence against them was obtained under duress and was therefore inadmissible, but has been found guilty in the last 6 months.
Subject to a number or factors it may be the case that these cases could incur little or nothing by way of legal costs.
Clearly we would like also to hear of anyone who has been found innocent on the basis that S172 is invalid!
Please contact Idris Francis by email or the ABD urgently if you are in this position.
It's going to be years yet, but as you've already been shafted you've not got much to lose.
BTW I'm with you on this, I'm not signing any NIP's. This isn't a knock at the old bill, I am a law abiding citizen, who has every sympathy for the dangerous and difficult work the police do. If I was guilty, fair cop guv, but forcing a confession from someone with the threat of more serious penalties rubs me the wrong way. Lets all stick to the law, and that includes the European ones that the current government chooses to ignore.
Time will tell.........................
Phil
IMHO you're going to get your money back, possibly with compensation when the ECHR overturns this stupid ruling. It is everyones right to remain silent. Steamrollering the section 172 legislation over motorists will in my opinion backfire in the governments face. Take a look at the abd website, and get yourself registered.
quote from the abd website
If you have incurred within the last 6 months penalties under S172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, either by incriminating yourself or by refusing to do so, whether for speed camera or other offences, you may be eligible as a 'victim' of this unfair law, to make an application to the ECHR for removal of the penalties and/or compensation. Contrary to previous information here, it is not possible for new applicants to 'join' an existing application, as all such applications must be made by individuals. We are however looking urgently for a small number of additional cases to take to the ECHR where:
(a) anyone has been charged with refusing to identify the driver, has pleaded 'not guilty' on the grounds that S172 is invalid, and has been found guilty within the last 6 months.
and
(b) anyone, who prosecuted in court, pleaded 'not guilty' on the grounds that the only evidence against them was obtained under duress and was therefore inadmissible, but has been found guilty in the last 6 months.
Subject to a number or factors it may be the case that these cases could incur little or nothing by way of legal costs.
Clearly we would like also to hear of anyone who has been found innocent on the basis that S172 is invalid!
Please contact Idris Francis by email or the ABD urgently if you are in this position.
It's going to be years yet, but as you've already been shafted you've not got much to lose.
BTW I'm with you on this, I'm not signing any NIP's. This isn't a knock at the old bill, I am a law abiding citizen, who has every sympathy for the dangerous and difficult work the police do. If I was guilty, fair cop guv, but forcing a confession from someone with the threat of more serious penalties rubs me the wrong way. Lets all stick to the law, and that includes the European ones that the current government chooses to ignore.
Time will tell.........................
Phil
Streetcop said:
no wonder people are beginning to say they won't help the Police anymore. Terribly sad day for the country.
Don't be over melodramatic hertsbiker..
I have to agree with hertsbiker here. I contacted the police when I was run off the road on my pushbike by a lorry: no interest. My wife was rear-ended by an uninsured driver: again, no interest from the police (they commented that it happens 4 or 5 times a day in the area she was in: they'd even run out of forms). I reported seeing an incident of vandalism and possible arson: no interest.
However, when I was allegedly seen doing 62 mph in a 50 mph limit, on a fairly empty dual carriageway, it was approached in such a way that I felt intimidated into paying up and taking the 3 points. I'm to this day convinced that it was the van that undertook me that actually triggered the camera, but because I don't get paid when I don't work, I couldn't take the risk of going to court: I'd still be out of pocket even if I won.
I've lost a lot of respect for the police. I won't help them, unless it looks like it will directly help me. I don't feel they're protecting me any more, in fact, I feel aggrieved that they are being used to generate money. I don't bother reporting anything to them, and I won't in future. If I ever am asked to help, I shall explain to them why I refuse.
It is indeed a sad day for the country, particularly as many of my relatives have been policemen.
Funny - English Law used to have one important discipline - person assumed inncocent until proven guilty ...
Und rules of evidence in criminal proceedings are supposed to be more stringent than in civil. Confession in criminal case will be carefully examined to see if pressure was brought to bear on accused.
How things change - threat of draconian fine if you refuse to admit your guilt from scamera - or genuinely do not know who may have been driving if car is insured any driver ... or even if scamera proves to have been faulty in first place - and this has been known ... What about the case where scam was incorrectly placed - they never pardoned the people they accused of speeding either ...
You should be allowed to see the evidence against you as soon as accused in any case - not wait until 7 days before you go to court over it as appears to be case .... and the fine should be a fixed standard - not whim of some hunt lovin' hooray henry magistrate who has as much sense as the average plank of wood who follows orders of politcal correctness....and has no knowledge of life outside the hunt ball ....
Und rules of evidence in criminal proceedings are supposed to be more stringent than in civil. Confession in criminal case will be carefully examined to see if pressure was brought to bear on accused.
How things change - threat of draconian fine if you refuse to admit your guilt from scamera - or genuinely do not know who may have been driving if car is insured any driver ... or even if scamera proves to have been faulty in first place - and this has been known ... What about the case where scam was incorrectly placed - they never pardoned the people they accused of speeding either ...
You should be allowed to see the evidence against you as soon as accused in any case - not wait until 7 days before you go to court over it as appears to be case .... and the fine should be a fixed standard - not whim of some hunt lovin' hooray henry magistrate who has as much sense as the average plank of wood who follows orders of politcal correctness....and has no knowledge of life outside the hunt ball ....
philthy said:
Sect 172 will still apply my friend.... 
What was it our member got fined recently £750+....
Street
He'll get it back when section 172 is deemed contrary to his human rights
Roll on article six.........
Phil
Keep dreaming.
.it won't happen, not in the UK.. Street
Streetcop said:
Streetcop said:
Sect 172 will still apply my friend....
What was it our member got fined recently £750+....
Street
He'll get it back when section 172 is deemed contrary to his human rights
Roll on article six.........
Phil
Keep dreaming.
Street
It will happen, but then the political trash will decriminalise speeding and just collect the cash, then blame Europe.
I think the government of the day..whatever day..will look towards speeding as a target..either to appease groups like 'BRAKE' or to collect revenue...Consequenlty anything that will overcome the government reaching targets will either be abolished or overcome.
Personally, although I'm against cameras and such like..I'm also witness to the fact that 99% of people who are caught committing a motoring offence, hold their hands up and take the punishment. There are then others, for whatever reason, who try to squirm their way out of it, usually through lies and deceit. If we are to prosecute those who roll over and have their belly tickled, then we must prosecute the more vociferous and obstructive ones too.
Street
Personally, although I'm against cameras and such like..I'm also witness to the fact that 99% of people who are caught committing a motoring offence, hold their hands up and take the punishment. There are then others, for whatever reason, who try to squirm their way out of it, usually through lies and deceit. If we are to prosecute those who roll over and have their belly tickled, then we must prosecute the more vociferous and obstructive ones too.
Street
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff