RE: Speeding: right to silence asserted
Wednesday 30th August 2006
Speeding: right to silence asserted
Human rights court to hear driver's case
 Convicting yourself contravenes human rights |
The 'right to silence' speeding case will be heard next month, reports Motor Cycle News today.
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will hear on 27 September challenges to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. That’s the section which requires registered keepers of vehicles and others to provide information who was driving at the time of an alleged offence.
Section 172 underpins all speed camera prosecutions, and millions of motorists each year receive Section 172 notices requiring them to identify the driver after their vehicle has been caught on camera.
The problem arises when the notice arrives on the doormat. If a driver then fills in the form, they are effectively signing a confession that violates their ancient right to silence. If they fail to fill in the form or otherwise provide the required information, they are guilty of a different offence.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "Section 172 has been a useful legislative 'big stick' capable of being used with wisdom and restraint to defend society against dangerous criminals. It should never have been used against millions of motorists who may or may not have committed minor traffic offences. It has been like using the big stick on your little sister. We have now arrived at the point where the big stick will be taken away because it has been abused.
"The tragedy is that S172 has been a useful police power in serious cases where responses could contribute to an ongoing investigation. Now that power will be lost for one reason and one reason only; because it has been misused.
"Once S172 goes, that will be the end of speed camera prosecutions as we know them. And that can only be good news for road safety. As far as I can tell, no one seriously expects the government to win."
Discussion
Part of the Camera issue that makes it so much more personal is the fact that you must declare who was driving, and then the government puts points on your license.
I am currenlty living in Switzerland where they hide the cameras and issue tickets at an alarming rate. However, they don't put points on your license, and you do not have to identify who was driving. You pay the fine and that's it. I feel like I am living under big brother (hidden cameras everywhere), but at least I won't lose my license because I just happen to be doing a few KPH over the limit.
The UK government knows just how angry people are getting, but refuse to give up their cash cow. If they lose this case, they may adopt the Swiss way of handling the fines. That is still a vast improvement.
I am currenlty living in Switzerland where they hide the cameras and issue tickets at an alarming rate. However, they don't put points on your license, and you do not have to identify who was driving. You pay the fine and that's it. I feel like I am living under big brother (hidden cameras everywhere), but at least I won't lose my license because I just happen to be doing a few KPH over the limit.
The UK government knows just how angry people are getting, but refuse to give up their cash cow. If they lose this case, they may adopt the Swiss way of handling the fines. That is still a vast improvement.
safespeed said:
turbobloke said:
Does the legislative kind of national veto apply in the European Court?
Doesn't it involve judges delivering a majority / unanimous verdict in European law?
Doesn't it involve judges delivering a majority / unanimous verdict in European law?
A majority verdict.This is where we see if Europe is worth bothering with or not then
Interesting about the fines in Switzerland. I too would prefer it like that. Getting point for minor speeding offences today seems silly when in the past you had to do some pretty silly things to get the same amount of points.
Surely adding points to lisences costs everyone more too. Money for admin to add points, money for revoking of lisences at 12 points, loss of income from fuel duty/earnings if lisence looser goes on dole etc.
All win win win for fine only endorsements in a way, and I'd be happier knowing only a fine is on the way rather than a potential lisence busting NIP.
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
safespeed said:
turbobloke said:
Does the legislative kind of national veto apply in the European Court?
Doesn't it involve judges delivering a majority / unanimous verdict in European law?
Doesn't it involve judges delivering a majority / unanimous verdict in European law?
A majority verdict.This is where we see if Europe is worth bothering with or not then
Interesting about the fines in Switzerland. I too would prefer it like that. Getting point for minor speeding offences today seems silly when in the past you had to do some pretty silly things to get the same amount of points.
Surely adding points to lisences costs everyone more too. Money for admin to add points, money for revoking of lisences at 12 points, loss of income from fuel duty/earnings if lisence looser goes on dole etc.
All win win win for fine only endorsements in a way, and I'd be happier knowing only a fine is on the way rather than a potential lisence busting NIP.
Dave
I don't think that the courts will roll over on this one. It is a very powerful tool to be able to demand people name the driver, and too useful in other areas for it to go completely by the wayside. However, I don't agree with the way S172 are used...so hopefully they might no longer be allowed.
As for the no-points system, doesn't this mean that people with cash would be able to do as they please, unless points are only dropped for "lesser" offences, which I think is being owrked on at present anyway (a sliding scale for speeding).
Not a lawyer, but I believe the right to silence extends only to the position of oneself. You may not claim the right to silence to protect another person.
Therefore if this appeal were to succeed, if one were to claim the right to silence, one would be asserting that he was the driver.
That is not the same thing as asserting that one had been guilty of the offence charged. It would be interesting to see how the law then made the connection, but no doubt it would be contrived somehow.
Therefore if this appeal were to succeed, if one were to claim the right to silence, one would be asserting that he was the driver.
That is not the same thing as asserting that one had been guilty of the offence charged. It would be interesting to see how the law then made the connection, but no doubt it would be contrived somehow.
Under certain conditions you need not implicate others, for example a wife can exercise a right to silence in order to refuse to answer questions which implicate her husband. This right is removed however if he is accused of a sexual offence against a person under I think 14.
Back to the S172. I was told that the initial case stipulated that the right to silence was revoked and was acceptable due the low punishment factor, i.e. a mere £60 penalty and points. I hope the defence counsel start to point out the totting up and the numbers of people banned.
Sadly, when I read many EC judgments it is pretty clear they operate as a tool of some governments and therefore I suspect the money making aspect of fines will ensure that the S172 is permitted to stay and the motorist can be persecuted.
Back to the S172. I was told that the initial case stipulated that the right to silence was revoked and was acceptable due the low punishment factor, i.e. a mere £60 penalty and points. I hope the defence counsel start to point out the totting up and the numbers of people banned.
Sadly, when I read many EC judgments it is pretty clear they operate as a tool of some governments and therefore I suspect the money making aspect of fines will ensure that the S172 is permitted to stay and the motorist can be persecuted.
This will be great news if the Euro Court stop this blatant disregard of people's fundamental rights as a citizen.
I will be having two convictions of failure to supply information overturned and will sue for my costs if this ridiculous misuse of the law is finally stopped.
Hopefully this will also apply to the Congestion Tax, which fines a registered keeper of a vehicle for failing to cough up the £8 per day Tax without any attempt by the authorities to find out who was actually driving and failing to pay said Tax. Parking Tickets also fall into this catagory.
I will be having two convictions of failure to supply information overturned and will sue for my costs if this ridiculous misuse of the law is finally stopped.
Hopefully this will also apply to the Congestion Tax, which fines a registered keeper of a vehicle for failing to cough up the £8 per day Tax without any attempt by the authorities to find out who was actually driving and failing to pay said Tax. Parking Tickets also fall into this catagory.
Whoa! That Big Stick metaphor really goes into some depth! The "little sister" bit was slightly weird though!
Yeah, it's a bit "off" to have a statutory requirement for drivers to incriminate themselves, but I suppose it's necessary. If you didn't have it I'm sure everyone who ever got a ticket would just claim that they weren't driving.
Although I hate them (I do, really really do
), I suppose points are necessary too, otherwise there would be nothing stopping people from speeding with impunity as £60 for a FPN is hardly going to break the bank.
Yeah, it's a bit "off" to have a statutory requirement for drivers to incriminate themselves, but I suppose it's necessary. If you didn't have it I'm sure everyone who ever got a ticket would just claim that they weren't driving.
Although I hate them (I do, really really do
), I suppose points are necessary too, otherwise there would be nothing stopping people from speeding with impunity as £60 for a FPN is hardly going to break the bank.Andrew D said:
Although I hate them (I do, really really do
), I suppose points are necessary too, otherwise there would be nothing stopping people from speeding with impunity as £60 for a FPN is hardly going to break the bank.Why? Trafpol with the ability to prosecute for dangerous driving is surely more important?
I am afraid for many people £60 will cripple the bank.
So if the goverments s172 duress programme is deemed to have been trampling all over peoples rights to silence, then what?
What happens to all the "convicted" that have had this done to them?
Do they get recompenced?
Does the government just ignore it all?
Can i stop asking so many questions?
What happens to all the "convicted" that have had this done to them?
Do they get recompenced?
Does the government just ignore it all?
Can i stop asking so many questions?
Andrew D said:
Yeah, it's a bit "off" to have a statutory requirement for drivers to incriminate themselves, but I suppose it's necessary. If you didn't have it I'm sure everyone who ever got a ticket would just claim that they weren't driving.
Suppose it isn't necessary - then the police would have to adduce independent evidence of identity as present at the scene of an alleged offence, just like they have to do for virtually everything else on the statute book. To remove this requirement makes for a lazy incompetent and unjust process.Dead right DF. My company was required to name and shame 2 years ago and we did not do so as the NIP was served out of time.. The clerk in pre trial hearing blathered on about the companies legal obligations to keep proper records at all times of who is driving as otherwise the Co is guilty of an offence. And we didn't have a leg to stand on. He requested, nay implored, me to change the Companies plea to guilty, to reduce the fine and save the courts time etc. I told him, nicely, that he was attempting to pervert the course of justice by taking a partial position and challenged it in court.
The CPS clown trotted out a set piece almost word for word and although the mags wavered, 45 minutes with the clerk had them educated as to the party line. £350 was nowhere as big as the fiune could have been.
I had great pleasure in telling the clerk that the reason we pleaded not guilty was to come back and hit them for costs when the ECHR overturn S172.
Of course as jasandjules point out Courts are political tools now and I think that the chances of it happening are less than evens.
But we'll see.
The CPS clown trotted out a set piece almost word for word and although the mags wavered, 45 minutes with the clerk had them educated as to the party line. £350 was nowhere as big as the fiune could have been.
I had great pleasure in telling the clerk that the reason we pleaded not guilty was to come back and hit them for costs when the ECHR overturn S172.
Of course as jasandjules point out Courts are political tools now and I think that the chances of it happening are less than evens.
But we'll see.
jasandjules said:
Why? Trafpol with the ability to prosecute for dangerous driving is surely more important?
I am afraid for many people £60 will cripple the bank.
I'm not sure I understand you're meaning. Trafpol are able to prosecute both speeding and dangerous driving, they're not mutually exclusive. And if £60 will break the bank of some, it's all the more reason for points, because without them the rich would be able to speed at will and the poor not (regressive taxation). I am afraid for many people £60 will cripple the bank.
turbobloke said:
Suppose it isn't necessary - then the police would have to adduce independent evidence of identity as present at the scene of an alleged offence, just like they have to do for virtually everything else on the statute book. To remove this requirement makes for a lazy incompetent and unjust process.
I'm sure that the Plod could, but then I'm sure a lot more cases would be contested by people just trying to get away with it (as an aside, I'm not suggesting that the innocent shouldn't contest their cases). So you'd need significantly greater numbers of plod and judiciary, which would mean higher taxes, and I personally think I pay quite enough at the moment!Mr Whippy said:
safespeed said:
turbobloke said:
Does the legislative kind of national veto apply in the European Court?
Doesn't it involve judges delivering a majority / unanimous verdict in European law?
Doesn't it involve judges delivering a majority / unanimous verdict in European law?
A majority verdict.This is where we see if Europe is worth bothering with or not then
Interesting about the fines in Switzerland. I too would prefer it like that. Getting point for minor speeding offences today seems silly when in the past you had to do some pretty silly things to get the same amount of points.
Surely adding points to lisences costs everyone more too. Money for admin to add points, money for revoking of lisences at 12 points, loss of income from fuel duty/earnings if lisence looser goes on dole etc.
All win win win for fine only endorsements in a way, and I'd be happier knowing only a fine is on the way rather than a potential lisence busting NIP.
Dave
Worth noting that the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Union.
Richard,
I think you may have missed the point of the ECHR appeal and I doubt you would ever get anywhere with an appeal in your circumstances.
It is all to do with self incrimination, a company naming a driver would not be doing that.
The next S172 in the chain would go to the driver named by the company. He would be the one who would be able to claim it breached his human rights and could not be forced to reply, after all a company is not human and cannot drive cars!
I think you may have missed the point of the ECHR appeal and I doubt you would ever get anywhere with an appeal in your circumstances.
It is all to do with self incrimination, a company naming a driver would not be doing that.
The next S172 in the chain would go to the driver named by the company. He would be the one who would be able to claim it breached his human rights and could not be forced to reply, after all a company is not human and cannot drive cars!
jasandjules said:
Under certain conditions you need not implicate others, for example a wife can exercise a right to silence in order to refuse to answer questions which implicate her husband.
I'm just trying to learn here, but can you claim the spousal exemption, or whatever it's called, if your spouse has not been charged, and can you claim it generally under "One's right to silence"? Are you not required to distinguish between your personal right to silence (as it applies to yourself) and your right to be exempt from testifying against your spouse?
Obviously, if you are required to distinguish between the two claims, you'd be effectively naming the driver in either case.
If they lose this case, our masters will just go to forward-facing cameras to identify the driver directly.
Yes, that will entail more hassle, but they could compensate themselves for the hassle by inflating the penalties beyond what they are at present.
Before long they'll have face-recognition equipment installed everywhere and won't need to ask the RK for details.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff