Terrorists have a right to silence..........
Discussion
http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/tm_objectid=14613680&method=full&siteid=50142&headline=why-do-terrorists-have-right-to-silence-but-not-drivers--name_page.html)
Why do terrorists have a right to silence while drivers do not? Sep 7 2004
By Elwyn Roberts, Daily Post
NORTH WALES man Norman Hayes is making a ground-breaking European challenge against his speed camera-related conviction.
The 47-year-old says he was unable to say for certain who was driving his Landrover when it was doing 42mph in a 30mph zone. His solicitor Michael Gray tells Elwyn Roberts why he believes the controversial speed camera laws are unfair and should be changed
ONE of the basic pillars of UK law is that people are innocent until proven guilty. So shifting the burden of proof so a defendant effectively has to prove his innocence is a dangerous and slippery slope, according to solicitor Michael Gray, who is making the first challenge to the law on which Britain's controversial speed camera campaign is based.
If he wins, it will have huge implications for Britain's motorists and will force legislators to think again over how speeding motorists are prosecuted.
As reported in yesterday's Daily Post, former Deeside man Norman Hayes is applying to the Council for Europe to take his speeding conviction to the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr Gray, who is currently preparing the case, said: "What we are basically saying is that the present system is a breach of Article Six of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right of silence and the right not to self-incriminate."
When cameras catch a vehicle speeding, it is not immediately stopped but police send out a notice to the registered keeper requiring them to say who was driving the vehicle at the time.
If the name of the driver is provided, proceedings are started against that person for speeding.
If the information is not provided, the registered keeper is prosecuted for failing to provide the information. Many courts are currently becoming bogged down with hundreds of such cases.
There is a "due diligence" defence where vehicle owners can be cleared if they can prove they have done everything within reason to try to establish who the driver was.
Some have been able to do that but invariably people are not believed, courts taking the view they are simply trying to get away with a speeding offence.
Under the current law, the right against self-incrimination does not apply to such cases.
Mr Gray says that shift of the burden of proof - where the vehicle owner effectively has to prove his case instead of the prosecution proving the case against him or her - is simply not fair and a breach of human rights.
"Laughably, it has been held that terrorists have the right of silence and not to incriminate themselves but motorists do not. We have exhausted our domestic remedies and we are now appealing to the Council for Europe to hear this issue."
The case which has defined the law on the issue was a Scottish one which Mr Gray says should not have any bearing on the law in Wales and England.
Why do terrorists have a right to silence while drivers do not? Sep 7 2004
By Elwyn Roberts, Daily Post
NORTH WALES man Norman Hayes is making a ground-breaking European challenge against his speed camera-related conviction.
The 47-year-old says he was unable to say for certain who was driving his Landrover when it was doing 42mph in a 30mph zone. His solicitor Michael Gray tells Elwyn Roberts why he believes the controversial speed camera laws are unfair and should be changed
ONE of the basic pillars of UK law is that people are innocent until proven guilty. So shifting the burden of proof so a defendant effectively has to prove his innocence is a dangerous and slippery slope, according to solicitor Michael Gray, who is making the first challenge to the law on which Britain's controversial speed camera campaign is based.
If he wins, it will have huge implications for Britain's motorists and will force legislators to think again over how speeding motorists are prosecuted.
As reported in yesterday's Daily Post, former Deeside man Norman Hayes is applying to the Council for Europe to take his speeding conviction to the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr Gray, who is currently preparing the case, said: "What we are basically saying is that the present system is a breach of Article Six of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right of silence and the right not to self-incriminate."
When cameras catch a vehicle speeding, it is not immediately stopped but police send out a notice to the registered keeper requiring them to say who was driving the vehicle at the time.
If the name of the driver is provided, proceedings are started against that person for speeding.
If the information is not provided, the registered keeper is prosecuted for failing to provide the information. Many courts are currently becoming bogged down with hundreds of such cases.
There is a "due diligence" defence where vehicle owners can be cleared if they can prove they have done everything within reason to try to establish who the driver was.
Some have been able to do that but invariably people are not believed, courts taking the view they are simply trying to get away with a speeding offence.
Under the current law, the right against self-incrimination does not apply to such cases.
Mr Gray says that shift of the burden of proof - where the vehicle owner effectively has to prove his case instead of the prosecution proving the case against him or her - is simply not fair and a breach of human rights.
"Laughably, it has been held that terrorists have the right of silence and not to incriminate themselves but motorists do not. We have exhausted our domestic remedies and we are now appealing to the Council for Europe to hear this issue."
The case which has defined the law on the issue was a Scottish one which Mr Gray says should not have any bearing on the law in Wales and England.
>>>>>>The case which has defined the law on the issue was a Scottish one which Mr Gray says should not have any bearing on the law in Wales and England.<<<<<<<<
Bearing in mind the argument on disclosure was the result of a Section 172 RTA 88 request, which is applicable to England, Wales and scotland under the Act, doesn't seem a good argument.
Thos interested, and I mean interested then the FULL Scottish case (heavy reading)is at:
www.tinyurl.com/6ougo
condensed news report:
www.tinyurl.com/6zwue
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Wednesday 8th September 16:22
Bearing in mind the argument on disclosure was the result of a Section 172 RTA 88 request, which is applicable to England, Wales and scotland under the Act, doesn't seem a good argument.
Thos interested, and I mean interested then the FULL Scottish case (heavy reading)is at:
www.tinyurl.com/6ougo
condensed news report:
www.tinyurl.com/6zwue
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Wednesday 8th September 16:22
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff