idea for defence? comments invited
Discussion
Whilst looking into the judgement on york&mawdesley yesterday it occured to me that there may be scope to argue that the completion of the NIP in anyway whatsoever by the Reg Keeper of a vehicle could amount to some form of forced confession, which in itself would render the NIP useless in anyway whatsoever the BIB. then again i may have made a glaring error or omission in my reasoning so feel free to comment & correct!
If one assumes that a signed NIP is a confession under s12 of RTOA (which as we know it is) and an unsigned, but completed by RK, NIP is a confession under PACE (which we dont know cos it hasnt been tested but JO tries to say it is) isnt the RK being forced to confess to the offence by the requirement of s172 of RTOA to fill in the details of the driver? Therefore the "confession" could not be deemed to be admissible because it was effectively forced, the two statutes which JO sought to apply to the NIP(PACE & RTOA) effctively conspire to mean that as soon as an RK puts pen to paper he is one way or another deemed to have confessed. And isnt it an unshakeable principle that a forced confession can never be deemed as acceptable evidence?
If one assumes that a signed NIP is a confession under s12 of RTOA (which as we know it is) and an unsigned, but completed by RK, NIP is a confession under PACE (which we dont know cos it hasnt been tested but JO tries to say it is) isnt the RK being forced to confess to the offence by the requirement of s172 of RTOA to fill in the details of the driver? Therefore the "confession" could not be deemed to be admissible because it was effectively forced, the two statutes which JO sought to apply to the NIP(PACE & RTOA) effctively conspire to mean that as soon as an RK puts pen to paper he is one way or another deemed to have confessed. And isnt it an unshakeable principle that a forced confession can never be deemed as acceptable evidence?
[quote=upcreeknopaddle?]Whilst looking into the judgement on york&mawdesley yesterday it occured to me that there may be scope to argue that the completion of the NIP in anyway whatsoever by the Reg Keeper of a vehicle could amount to some form of forced confession, which in itself would render the NIP useless in anyway whatsoever the BIB. then again i may have made a glaring error or omission in my reasoning so feel free to comment & correct!
If one assumes that a signed NIP is a confession under s12 of RTOA (which as we know it is) and an unsigned, but completed by RK, NIP is a confession under PACE (which we dont know cos it hasnt been tested but JO tries to say it is) isnt the RK being forced to confess to the offence by the requirement of s172 of RTOA to fill in the details of the driver? Therefore the "confession" could not be deemed to be admissible because it was effectively forced, the two statutes which JO sought to apply to the NIP(PACE & RTOA) effctively conspire to mean that as soon as an RK puts pen to paper he is one way or another deemed to have confessed. And isnt it an unshakeable principle that a forced confession can never be deemed as acceptable evidence?[/quote]
it has bee agued m8
that it was in breach of artical 6 of Europian court of human rights.
but the prive councile over ruld it say they could make a exception under the public intrest.
to bye em time
tre the current case due to be here at the europen court of human rights
the adriss case and the result wont be in for a few years yes
in the men time his sentancing had been delayed for refusing to fill the nip in at all
untill his case has been heard in the eropen court.
however like you said now that they have brourt the subject of pace up
then that could well be agued that it is a confetion made un oprestion.
in a seperate case at the europen court.
to take a case there will cost a lot of cash
If one assumes that a signed NIP is a confession under s12 of RTOA (which as we know it is) and an unsigned, but completed by RK, NIP is a confession under PACE (which we dont know cos it hasnt been tested but JO tries to say it is) isnt the RK being forced to confess to the offence by the requirement of s172 of RTOA to fill in the details of the driver? Therefore the "confession" could not be deemed to be admissible because it was effectively forced, the two statutes which JO sought to apply to the NIP(PACE & RTOA) effctively conspire to mean that as soon as an RK puts pen to paper he is one way or another deemed to have confessed. And isnt it an unshakeable principle that a forced confession can never be deemed as acceptable evidence?[/quote]
it has bee agued m8
that it was in breach of artical 6 of Europian court of human rights.
but the prive councile over ruld it say they could make a exception under the public intrest.
to bye em time
tre the current case due to be here at the europen court of human rights
the adriss case and the result wont be in for a few years yes
in the men time his sentancing had been delayed for refusing to fill the nip in at all
untill his case has been heard in the eropen court.
however like you said now that they have brourt the subject of pace up
then that could well be agued that it is a confetion made un oprestion.
in a seperate case at the europen court.
to take a case there will cost a lot of cash
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff