Illegality of existing Cleveland Section 172 Notice once aga

[nigel_bytes]

In Teesside Crown Court on February 28th Judge Briggs found in favour of appellant, Andrew Heaney, in confirming his appeal against conviction on a failure to provide driver details in response to a Section 172 notice.

www.abd.org.uk/

[jasandjules]

Ah, I wonder if that is why I got my letter from Mr BLiar stating that S172 scrapping petition is not applicable as it is before the ECJ...

Good news though - Is there a link to the case itself? Was it argued under ECHR?

Edited by jasandjules on Saturday 10th March 17:27

[chrispy porker]

I think it must be some factor peculiar to Cleveland, rather than nationally.

Perhaps someone can say what that might be ?

[nigel_bytes]

www.motorbar.co.uk/talk3.htm

[monkeyhanger]

chrispy porker said:

I think it must be some factor peculiar to Cleveland, rather than nationally.

Perhaps someone can say what that might be ?

IIRC it's something to do with the wording on Cleveland's NOIPs

[cen]

The Crown prosecution service is currently (some areas of the UK) in melt down regarding S.172 of The Road Traffic Act. Most prefering the appelant to request an adjournment pending the outcome of O'Halloran.

The reasons I started the PM petition to scrap section 172 was to highlight the expence that it will cause the UK taxpayer when the ECJ rule in favour of it being an infringement of ECHR. The difference between English/Welsh judgements and that of the European Court of Justice's decisions is that, the latter tend to be more consistant. Therefore, having ruled on numerous occasions that 'The request of information by means of penalty in criminal charges is, not permissable'we can assume will be held again.

If this is the case then there will be motorist chasing lawyers starting proceedings for damages of wrongful conviction. I can see them in the town centres 'Excuse me are you a victim of a request for information that incriminated you or others?' No win no fee basis.

All the money raked in from the so called speed detection camera's and more will be used to compensate. Anyone familiar with previous ECJ v UK judgements will know that the Government have paid out millions in compensation mainly, to other member state citizens.