Speed camera law beaten!
Discussion
A motorist in Wales is the first to have beaten the speed camera/nip system, and setting a possible precedent for others to follow.
Reported today in the Times:
at:
www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-593938,00.html
===================================================
Motorist beats speed cameras
Phillip Dennis, 34, of Whitford near Holywell, who was trapped
by a speed camera, was found not guilty when Flintshire
magistrates at Mold, north Wales, highlighted a loophole in the
law. Mr Dennis had not signed the form which had been posted to
him and in which he named himself as the driver of the vehicle —
meaning the document was inadmissable as evidence.
===================================================
Safe Speed pointed out this loophole 18 months ago, but now it's been
tested in a Court.
This could open the floodgates. The only escape would seem to be a
change in the law.
Good news at Last!
Reported today in the Times:
at:
www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-593938,00.html
===================================================
Motorist beats speed cameras
Phillip Dennis, 34, of Whitford near Holywell, who was trapped
by a speed camera, was found not guilty when Flintshire
magistrates at Mold, north Wales, highlighted a loophole in the
law. Mr Dennis had not signed the form which had been posted to
him and in which he named himself as the driver of the vehicle —
meaning the document was inadmissable as evidence.
===================================================
Safe Speed pointed out this loophole 18 months ago, but now it's been
tested in a Court.
This could open the floodgates. The only escape would seem to be a
change in the law.
Good news at Last!
Hmmmmmm the law requires you to reveal who the driver was at the time of the offence.
Not signing it sounds simple but on the ball.
It reveals who the driver was, thus complying with the law, but avoids the controversial point of implicating yourself.
It would then fall to the Prosecution to prove the statement true, would it not.
Surely the "right to silence" would then protect you from having to confirm that you yourself provided the information in the first place. From this point forward I would think you cannot be forced to implicate yourself.
>> Edited by swilly on Friday 28th February 14:30
Not signing it sounds simple but on the ball.
It reveals who the driver was, thus complying with the law, but avoids the controversial point of implicating yourself.
It would then fall to the Prosecution to prove the statement true, would it not.
Surely the "right to silence" would then protect you from having to confirm that you yourself provided the information in the first place. From this point forward I would think you cannot be forced to implicate yourself.
>> Edited by swilly on Friday 28th February 14:30
Hmmm sounds very interesting, but as this happened in Wales it may not work if you try it in England.
This also seems like a pretty easy loophole to close up. i.e. if you don't sign it the person implicated will receive double points and fine!!
So whos willing to give it a go, purely to test the legal waters you understand............
This also seems like a pretty easy loophole to close up. i.e. if you don't sign it the person implicated will receive double points and fine!!
So whos willing to give it a go, purely to test the legal waters you understand............
Hi All,
I broke this story, and the Safe Speed web site has carried the advice not to sign the NIP for 18 months. It's nice to see it sucessfully tested in the courts.
I'm not a lawyer, but the requirement to supply information is in section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. You can read it here:
www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_8.htm#mdiv172
There's nothing in there about "signatures" or "evidence", so we think it should be legal to supply the information requested but without a signature. This will protect the owner from a section 172 charge of failing to supply information, and as in the Phillip Dennis case, will protect the driver from conviction in court.
If the Police tried to convict a non-signing owner for attempting to pervert the course of justice, then the owner should say "My solicitor told me never to sign anything unless absolutely necessary." This would remove the motivation part and prove, that the motivation was not to pervert the course of justice, but to follow simple legal advice.
We can't see any escape for the authorities except a change in law. As news develops I will keep the SafeSpeed web site updated with the latest. There will always be a link in the "Good News" column on the first page of the site.
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
promoting intelligent road safety
I broke this story, and the Safe Speed web site has carried the advice not to sign the NIP for 18 months. It's nice to see it sucessfully tested in the courts.
I'm not a lawyer, but the requirement to supply information is in section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. You can read it here:
www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_8.htm#mdiv172
There's nothing in there about "signatures" or "evidence", so we think it should be legal to supply the information requested but without a signature. This will protect the owner from a section 172 charge of failing to supply information, and as in the Phillip Dennis case, will protect the driver from conviction in court.
If the Police tried to convict a non-signing owner for attempting to pervert the course of justice, then the owner should say "My solicitor told me never to sign anything unless absolutely necessary." This would remove the motivation part and prove, that the motivation was not to pervert the course of justice, but to follow simple legal advice.
We can't see any escape for the authorities except a change in law. As news develops I will keep the SafeSpeed web site updated with the latest. There will always be a link in the "Good News" column on the first page of the site.
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
promoting intelligent road safety
It seems the floodgates are open and the Police have admitted it. The advice is don't sign those forms! I've set up a new web page to carry the latest news and advice.
www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html
Oh happy day!
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html
Oh happy day!
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
deltaf said: Any lawyer types on here able to shed any light on if its possible for the law to be changed to compel you to incriminate yourself by signing?
Cos thatll be next if these wanks get their way.
I cant spell my name LoL
Iv spraned my wrist and cant write
so do go F off now, like a good littel boy officer.
I would love to see em try to fourse a suspect to sign a confetion.
That will go down lovely with the european court of human rights.
If blare and bush do get us all nucked first.
bet theres a few that wish they hadent just payed the fine and tock it on the chin like some ask us to do.
I prefer to see the powers bend over at be take in the arss.
pluss like i said many times before that aint the only loop hole.
theres somwe more too.
Iv let a few of em out on here.
all so if you dont get pulled at the time. It kind of ****s up alot things for our boys in blue
>> Edited by outlaw on Friday 28th February 22:13
deltaf said: Any lawyer types on here able to shed any light on if its possible for the law to be changed to compel you to incriminate yourself by signing?
Cos thatll be next if these wanks get their way.
cant see it happeming as If they get that, they may as well make beating a confestion out of motorists legal.
I shaw a few of the boys in blue would no dout like it if they could.
Theres alot more at stake here that just the scamers.
>> Edited by outlaw on Friday 28th February 23:04
deltaf said: Any lawyer types on here able to shed any light on if its possible for the law to be changed to compel you to incriminate yourself by signing?
Cos thatll be next if these wanks get their way.
Delta, this is exactly what the Idris Francis case in the European courts is all about. Forced self incrimination. Have a look at the subject on the ABD website:
www.abd.org.uk/righttosilence.htm
DAZ
Yes the priv councile made a bullshit ruleing in the brown case to by them time.
ie the time it takes for it to GOTO tHE eropean court.
I have suspected for a long time the scamers days are numbered and they were going to try and make a killing before they had to pull em down.
because of law **** ups or the public getting pissed and burnning them.
there are still a few holes in the scammer law
1). no signing it now tested hard to over rUle with out a law change as its in black and white in british law
2)the adris deffence still being tested / good chance of a win some believ
3) tell them it was a your spouce driving a spouce cant be forced give evidence in court againsed there spouce.
4) used by me a few times. not test in court yet"they dident dare try but I can tell you it works
"I cant remember who was driving but i hereby make a faulse confetion under duress and the tret of prosocution. in breach of artical 6 of the eropean court of humanrights
"
a known faulse confetion is noy admisable in court as evidence.
5.) now thart would be telling
personaly i normaly use number 2 a a smoke screen
number 4 as the real defence and number 1 as a back up defence
and number 5 as the ace up my sleave
a fausle confetion is no admisable in court.
pluss one im not making public
so far
the score is outlaw=3 scamers=0
outlaw=0 points
I cant see them being able to fouce any one to sign a nip.
>> Edited by outlaw on Friday 28th February 23:38
ie the time it takes for it to GOTO tHE eropean court.
I have suspected for a long time the scamers days are numbered and they were going to try and make a killing before they had to pull em down.
because of law **** ups or the public getting pissed and burnning them.
there are still a few holes in the scammer law
1). no signing it now tested hard to over rUle with out a law change as its in black and white in british law
2)the adris deffence still being tested / good chance of a win some believ
3) tell them it was a your spouce driving a spouce cant be forced give evidence in court againsed there spouce.
4) used by me a few times. not test in court yet"they dident dare try but I can tell you it works
"I cant remember who was driving but i hereby make a faulse confetion under duress and the tret of prosocution. in breach of artical 6 of the eropean court of humanrights
"
a known faulse confetion is noy admisable in court as evidence.
5.) now thart would be telling
personaly i normaly use number 2 a a smoke screen
number 4 as the real defence and number 1 as a back up defence
and number 5 as the ace up my sleave
a fausle confetion is no admisable in court.
pluss one im not making public
so far
the score is outlaw=3 scamers=0
outlaw=0 points
I cant see them being able to fouce any one to sign a nip.
>> Edited by outlaw on Friday 28th February 23:38
tvrslag said: Hmmm sounds very interesting, but as this happened in Wales it may not work if you try it in England.
This also seems like a pretty easy loophole to close up. i.e. if you don't sign it the person implicated will receive double points and fine!!
So whos willing to give it a go, purely to test the legal waters you understand............
The law in England and Wales is exactly the same. It is very different in Scotland and Southern Ireland, but nearly the same in Northern Ireland.
Message Board | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff