ECHR Judgement

[NugentS]

Due 29th June 2007

It should be a good day.

Francis & presumably O'Halloran

Regards

Sean

[lookrightfirst]

it will be the result they want it to be in my opinnion

[vonhosen]

And what do you think will happen if the result goes the way you'd like ?

[NugentS]

vonhosen said:

And what do you think will happen if the result goes the way you'd like ?

I think I lot of tickets potentially get reversed. Also the rules change significantly and it works rather more as most of europe. One would suspect no points as most of the time there will be no suspect - just a presumption of guilt and an administrative fine to make the whole thing go away...

Of course - the law suit where the government get sued might be funny too. Unfortunately I won't be able to join in on that one as I was never found guilty using evidence obtained under compulsion - the CPS lost the papers and the case was dismissed... Bit of a bummer really - I would have preferred a guilty verdict I think (I shall know at the end of the month)

Regards

Sean

[Zeeky]

vonhosen said:

And what do you think will happen if the result goes the way you'd like ?

UK will withdraw from the Convention. They have threatened to over their anti-terrrorism legislation.

Interesting that Mr Francis is reported as a 'veteran' member of UKIP and seeks justice in the European Court of Human Rights. Methinks he is a bit of nob but good to see this being considered by the ECtHR and the Grand Chamber, no less.

I don't think they stand much chance but you can't be sure.

The strength in the UK's case is that the RK is only being asked to provide evidence of who was driving at the time. The driver is still free to deny they have committed the offence. The burden of proof still lies with the prosecution.

On top of this the UK will argue it is a proportionate response to a legitimate aim. (States don't sign upto conventions without 'get-out' clauses for difficult situations).

I think it is the case in serious fraud cases now that Directors of Companies have to provide answers to pertinent questions. Threre is also a reverse burden of proof for, among others, possession of an offensive weapon so there is limited mileage in the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence. It certainly isn't an absolute right.

Edited by Zeeky on Wednesday 6th June 01:10

[Dwight VanDriver]

Ten 2 One they hold the system legal on the grounds of public interest.

Calmly now....just consider the outcome if they agree with Idris Francis whom I somewhat admire for sticking to his guns and taking it this far.

C.....H.....A.....O......S

dvd

[streaky]

Zeeky said:

vonhosen said:

And what do you think will happen if the result goes the way you'd like ?

UK will withdraw from the Convention. They have threatened to over their anti-terrrorism legislation.

And they didn't/haven't withdrawn over anti-terrorism legislation, so if the did over a "speeding offence", what would that say? We all know the answer. Won't happen - Streaky

[KenP]

Zeeky said:

UK will withdraw from the Convention. They have threatened to over their anti-terrrorism legislation.

Interesting that Mr Francis is reported as a 'veteran' member of UKIP and seeks justice in the European Court of Human Rights. Methinks he is a bit of nob but good to see this being considered by the ECtHR and the Grand Chamber, no less.

I don't think they stand much chance but you can't be sure.

The strength in the UK's case is that the RK is only being asked to provide evidence of who was driving at the time. The driver is still free to deny they have committed the offence. The burden of proof still lies with the prosecution.

On top of this the UK will argue it is a proportionate response to a legitimate aim. (States don't sign upto conventions without 'get-out' clauses for difficult situations).

I think it is the case in serious fraud cases now that Directors of Companies have to provide answers to pertinent questions. Threre is also a reverse burden of proof for, among others, possession of an offensive weapon so there is limited mileage in the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence. It certainly isn't an absolute right.

Edited by Zeeky on Wednesday 6th June 01:10

The EHRC has nothing to do with the EU (and therefore UKIP). The convention(1950) predates the Treaty of Rome by at least 6 years and was originally drafted by the UK to provide a frame work of rights within post-war Europe.
Apples and oranges.

[Cooperman]

FWIW, the UK Gov't will probably lose.
Then they will change the law, very quickly, by means of a Stat. Inst., and make the keeper primarily responsible for the total conduct of his/her vehicle, including speeding fines and points if the keeper declines to name the driver and provide a useable witness statement against the driver.
In the case of company registered vehicles, the company will be fined at a higher level, but with no points, should they fail to identify the driver, since the company is the keeper.
Heads they win, tails we lose!
Surely no-one expects them to give up on the revenue stream and job-creation the cameras provide, do they?
This case really is a waste of time as it will have no worthwhile result for any individual and the cash-collection will continue.

[Don]

I think Francis may well win. It will then be MUCH easier for all concerned simply to take a decent picture of the driver and supply it with the S172. I think most people will not then try and go down the fail to identify route...when all it would take is a visit from a local copper to determine it was "the husband", "the wife" etc.

And the local cops would be OBLIGED to make such visits by the SCPs.

I don't see an end to the current status quo no matter which way things go myself...

[Flat in Fifth]

I think odds on Francis et al will lose. As DVD says otherwise meltdown.

If they don't then law will be changed pronto similar to cooperman post.

ie RK responsible for minor offences, no points attributable, eg parking, minor speed infractions PL + x mph. Major offences eg > PL + y mph (where y>x) then visits from old bill with face to face interviews of RK and going on from there where the evidential chain leads. (see 1 below)

Personally I think it is VERY significant that the enabling legislation in Road Safety Bill is in place but HMG appears to be waiting on the detail before introducing the necessary SIs.

Might be talking out of my rear end obviously. Just my thoughts.

FiF

• note 1 For example enabling legislation in place in Traffic Management Bill re Trafic Officers and Road Safety Bill for graduated penalties based on PL + x,y,z mph.

So offences detected by HATOs (see note 2 below) of PL + xmph can only incur RK financial penalty, but no points, offences detected by plod, / scamps PL + y mph then full majesty of law grinds into ponderous action.

• note 2 oh dear can open worms all over place.

[Zeeky]

KenP said:

The EHRC has nothing to do with the EU (and therefore UKIP). The convention(1950) predates the Treaty of Rome by at least 6 years and was originally drafted by the UK to provide a frame work of rights within post-war Europe.
Apples and oranges.

I agree the Council of Europe (from whence the ECHR comes from) and the EU are different organisations (although it is innacurate to say they have nothing to do with each other). It is perfectly logical to support membership of the ECHR but not the EU.

However, listening to UKIP members speaking about Europe and the need for total national Sovereignty I would suggest it is a gross hypocrisy for them to do so.

[Zeeky]

FishFace said:

I'd be surprised if it went they way speeders want it to go.

I'm not even sure if the UK is legally bound to accept the decision on HRA decisions.

The ECtHR is not deciding on the HRA, that is domestic legislation. They will decide on the Treaty provisions and their decision is binding on the UK to the extent the UK honours its Treaty obligations.

As far as I am aware the UK has historically complied with the Court's decisions (although they had the second worse record for unfavourable results in the Court out of the 15 EU countries, prior to the HRA). Blatantly disregarding them doesn't do much for our standing internationally.

[David_s]

vonhosen said:

And what do you think will happen if the result goes the way you'd like ?

I suspect they will decriminalise the offence and make the punishment a fine only for the registered keeper with no points, much like parking offence

edited to add 'a penalty charge, not a fine'.

Edited by David_s on Wednesday 6th June 21:25

[safespeed]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Ten 2 One they hold the system legal on the grounds of public interest.

Calmly now....just consider the outcome if they agree with Idris Francis whom I somewhat admire for sticking to his guns and taking it this far.

C.....H.....A.....O......S

dvd

What sort of chaos?

Did we have chaos before we had speed cameras?

[NugentS]

David_s said:

vonhosen said:

And what do you think will happen if the result goes the way you'd like ?

I suspect they will decriminalise the offence and make the punishment a fine only for the registered keeper with no points, much like parking offence

edited to add 'a penalty charge, not a fine'.

Edited by David_s on Wednesday 6th June 21:25

Yup - thats my view...

Sean

[NobleGuy]

Sorry, have I been on Mars for all eternity?
What is this all about?

[esselte]

Cooperman said:

FWIW, the UK Gov't will probably lose.
Then they will change the law, very quickly, by means of a Stat. Inst., and make the keeper primarily responsible for the total conduct of his/her vehicle, including speeding fines and points if the keeper declines to name the driver and provide a useable witness statement against the driver.
In the case of company registered vehicles, the company will be fined at a higher level, but with no points, should they fail to identify the driver, since the company is the keeper.
Heads they win, tails we lose!
Surely no-one expects them to give up on the revenue stream and job-creation the cameras provide, do they?
This case really is a waste of time as it will have no worthwhile result for any individual and the cash-collection will continue.

What happens if I make my granny the RK of my car?She definitely has no intention of driving again so the points would have no impact.

[FastShow]

NobleGuy said:

Sorry, have I been on Mars for all eternity?
What is this all about?

This is a case that will decide once and for all if we actually have any kind of right to silence in this country. The implications are HUGE whichever way it goes (end to self-incrimination requirements for speeding offences, or the end of your right to silence). In a nutshell, the UK is the only country to have legislation that requires you to incriminate yourself, or face a criminal penalty for not incriminating yourself. This goes against everything the British legal system stands for, but of course it brings in a couple of quid each year so it's considered fine.

There is no other law in the UK that requires self-incrimination under threat of criminal penalty, and there is no (widespread at least) legislation that requires the same in Europe either - this is solely a situation of the British government's own making.

IMHO, if it goes against "us" it will cause far more problems for the government than if it goes for us as it will remove an incredibly long standing legal protection - it's really no different to removing the presumption that one is innocent until proven guilty. The ECHR has already heard a near identical case (Weh -v- Austria where tax laws require you to turn over paperwork that is effectively self-incriminating) and found that the law didn't breach right to silence laws solely because the penalty for failing to comply was civil, not criminal.

As such, this case is really a foregone conclusion based on previous cases, so I expect to see speeding decriminalised in the not too distant future...

Edited by FastShow on Thursday 7th June 10:12

[FastShow]

esselte said:

What happens if I make my granny the RK of my car?She definitely has no intention of driving again so the points would have no impact.

If speeding is decriminalised, there will be no points, only a penalty charge.