Legal question Re "scamera" partnerships
Discussion
Interesting legal point brought to my attention today (other than the "forced to confess" scam).
In article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights it states that every citizen has a right to a fair trial by an Independent and Impartial Tribunal.
The plague of "Safety
Camera Partnerships" (the name is so PC it makes me) all over the country, set up to catch speeding motorists, are financed by the fine revenues from said "criminals".
These partnerships are made up of various organisations including the Local Council, the Police and the Local Magistrates Court.
In any court case the magistrates decide on punishment and level of fine imposed - if they are part of the "partnership" then they "benefit" from the revenue generated, in that case how can they be "Independent and Impartial" as they have a vested interest in fining as much and as many motorists as possible.
This is certainly an abuse of power and I believe a breach of Human Rights, could it be shown to be illegal, does anyone know, have any ideas or know anyone who might know?
Of course all the "Partners" benefit so they are all abusing their position in that they have political and finacial motives to catch more "criminals" rather than a safety and common sense motivation - any comments?
In article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights it states that every citizen has a right to a fair trial by an Independent and Impartial Tribunal.
The plague of "Safety
Camera Partnerships" (the name is so PC it makes me) all over the country, set up to catch speeding motorists, are financed by the fine revenues from said "criminals". These partnerships are made up of various organisations including the Local Council, the Police and the Local Magistrates Court.
In any court case the magistrates decide on punishment and level of fine imposed - if they are part of the "partnership
" then they "benefit" from the revenue generated, in that case how can they be "Independent and Impartial" as they have a vested interest in fining as much and as many motorists as possible. This is certainly an abuse of power and I believe a breach of Human Rights, could it be shown to be illegal, does anyone know, have any ideas or know anyone who might know?
Of course all the "Partners
" benefit so they are all abusing their position in that they have political and finacial motives to catch more "criminals" rather than a safety and common sense motivation - any comments? Funny enough Lord Irvine has just been told today that he can't sit as a judge - make your own conclusions if the same applies to your postulation above.
J
From "The Times" (all rights reserved)
Irvine can't be a judge, says human rights report
By Frances Gibb
THE Lord Chancellor should be barred from sitting as a judge because his twin roles as judge and politician could endanger people’s human rights, according to a draft European report.
The report, to be put to the 44-nation Council of Europe today, says that the Lord Chancellor’s combined job of Cabinet minister, judge and Speaker of the House of Lords breaches the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees trial by an “independent and impartial tribunal”.
Lord Irvine of Lairg insists that the Convention does not bar him from sitting as a judge on any matter not concerning state interests. In fact, he sits rarely — for only three days in 2001 and not at all last year.
Today’s report was drawn up by Erik Jurgens, a Dutch professor of constitutional law, after taking evidence from leading British legal figures, including Lords Bingham of Cornhill, Steyn and Hoffmann, who support a supreme court separate from the legislature or executive.
Mr Jurgens is already advising countries seeking to join the Council of Europe — which is separate from the EU, but includes all its members — that they will be admitted only if their judges are totally independent.
His report concludes that “combining the function of judge with functions in other branches of government calls that independence seriously into question. The assembly therefore invites the UK to review the office of the Lord Chancellor as chairman and member of the appellate division of the House of Lords in such a way that his judicial function is no longer combined with membership of the Cabinet and with the presiding membership of a chamber of the legislative assembly.”
If it is endorsed by the assembly’s legal affairs and human rights committee today, it will go to a full assembly of parliamentarians later this year.
If the assembly approved the report, Britain will be in an embarrassing position. Even though the Government could not be forced to make changes, it would be regarded as in breach of the Convention to which it was a signatory.
If a case were then brought to the European Court of Human Rights, the Government would have to comply with its findings.
The Council of Europe was set up by Britain and nine other states in 1949 to ensure the lessons of the Second World War were learnt throughout Europe.
J
From "The Times" (all rights reserved)
Irvine can't be a judge, says human rights report
By Frances Gibb
THE Lord Chancellor should be barred from sitting as a judge because his twin roles as judge and politician could endanger people’s human rights, according to a draft European report.
The report, to be put to the 44-nation Council of Europe today, says that the Lord Chancellor’s combined job of Cabinet minister, judge and Speaker of the House of Lords breaches the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees trial by an “independent and impartial tribunal”.
Lord Irvine of Lairg insists that the Convention does not bar him from sitting as a judge on any matter not concerning state interests. In fact, he sits rarely — for only three days in 2001 and not at all last year.
Today’s report was drawn up by Erik Jurgens, a Dutch professor of constitutional law, after taking evidence from leading British legal figures, including Lords Bingham of Cornhill, Steyn and Hoffmann, who support a supreme court separate from the legislature or executive.
Mr Jurgens is already advising countries seeking to join the Council of Europe — which is separate from the EU, but includes all its members — that they will be admitted only if their judges are totally independent.
His report concludes that “combining the function of judge with functions in other branches of government calls that independence seriously into question. The assembly therefore invites the UK to review the office of the Lord Chancellor as chairman and member of the appellate division of the House of Lords in such a way that his judicial function is no longer combined with membership of the Cabinet and with the presiding membership of a chamber of the legislative assembly.”
If it is endorsed by the assembly’s legal affairs and human rights committee today, it will go to a full assembly of parliamentarians later this year.
If the assembly approved the report, Britain will be in an embarrassing position. Even though the Government could not be forced to make changes, it would be regarded as in breach of the Convention to which it was a signatory.
If a case were then brought to the European Court of Human Rights, the Government would have to comply with its findings.
The Council of Europe was set up by Britain and nine other states in 1949 to ensure the lessons of the Second World War were learnt throughout Europe.
Yes this is a similar conflict of interests, maybe not in such a high profile way *but* affecting many more people and for what was in the past considered a minor offence.
I mean the whole idea is effectively like paying them on a "commission" basis -
imagine if PC Laser-Plod got £10 for every "nick" 
IMHO It is really "legalized" corruption.
It would be interesting to see what could be made of this in court, would it need to go to ECHR? Do we have any "legal" people reading who would care to comment?
I mean the whole idea is effectively like paying them on a "commission" basis -
imagine if PC Laser-Plod got £10 for every "nick" IMHO It is really "legalized" corruption.
It would be interesting to see what could be made of this in court, would it need to go to ECHR? Do we have any "legal" people reading who would care to comment?
Message Board | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff