ECHR Verdict..

[davido140]

Got out of bed all excited and rushed downstairs, flicked on the PC to read the ECHR verdict!!!!

Oh crap its thursday... Could have sworn it was friday!

Is anyone else genuinely excited to hear these results!! or am i just nuts!

[lord summerisle]

i'm buying shares in a white paint company....

[NobleGuy]

davido140 said:

Got out of bed all excited and rushed downstairs, flicked on the PC to read the ECHR verdict!!!!

Oh crap its thursday... Could have sworn it was friday!

Is anyone else genuinely excited to hear these results!! or am i just nuts!

I am too. If they decide in our favour then how is it going to affect future and past convictions?

[Cooperman]

It may be that the only convictions it could effect are those for failure to disclose the identity of the driver under S172 where the convictions was against those who refused to identify and claimed it was an infringement against their human rights to be obliged to do so. After all, that's what this is about.

[alphadog]

Cooperman said:

It may be that the only convictions it could effect are those for failure to disclose the identity of the driver under S172 where the convictions was against those who refused to identify and claimed it was an infringement against their human rights to be obliged to do so. After all, that's what this is about.

If the case is won, surely they'll just prosecute the owner of the vehicle if the driver's not named as I believe they do now anyway.

[Parrot of Doom]

Then the nature of the offence would be 'allowing a vehicle to be used in an illegal manner', the defence for which would be 'I cannot be held responsible for the unreasonable actions of others, thats what the police are there for'.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Parrot of Doom said:

Then the nature of the offence would be 'allowing a vehicle to be used in an illegal manner', the defence for which would be 'I cannot be held responsible for the unreasonable actions of others, thats what the police are there for'.

However if you lend them the means to carry out that act then maybe you should hold some responsibility. If you own a vehicle and lend it to someone then you should take reasonable steps to ensure they do not act unreasonably and should also be helpfull in their prosecution should they act in an unreasonable way.

You cannot absolve yourself of any responsibility if your initial inaction would have prevented their unreasonable behaviour.

You lend someone a car. They kill someone driving dangerously, have no driving licence or insurance for your vehicle. Would you suggest you have no responsibility in that matter? At least in helping to identify who was driving your car at the time?

[Mr2Mike]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

However if you lend them the means to carry out that act then maybe you should hold some responsibility.

So if you lend someone your trolley jack and they subsequently use the handle to beat someone to death...you would then be partly responsible?

[s2art]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Then the nature of the offence would be 'allowing a vehicle to be used in an illegal manner', the defence for which would be 'I cannot be held responsible for the unreasonable actions of others, thats what the police are there for'.

However if you lend them the means to carry out that act then maybe you should hold some responsibility. If you own a vehicle and lend it to someone then you should take reasonable steps to ensure they do not act unreasonably and should also be helpfull in their prosecution should they act in an unreasonable way.

You cannot absolve yourself of any responsibility if your initial inaction would have prevented their unreasonable behaviour.

You lend someone a car. They kill someone driving dangerously, have no driving licence or insurance for your vehicle. Would you suggest you have no responsibility in that matter? At least in helping to identify who was driving your car at the time?

Sure, but as long as you can 'Plead the fifth' and it cant be used against you.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Mr2Mike said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

However if you lend them the means to carry out that act then maybe you should hold some responsibility.

So if you lend someone your trolley jack and they subsequently use the handle to beat someone to death...you would then be partly responsible?

If your standing outside a pub and its kicking off and you hand it to him yes. If your at a road rage incident and you hand it to him. Yes.

If you don't take reasonable steps when you lend someone an item then as I said you may have to hold some responsibility for there action or at the least (and this is where you took the quote out of context a favourite of these forums) you do have some responsibility to aid in identification of the offender.

I think its reasonable if you lend him a trolley jack he kills someone with it that when your jack is found with the blood on it that you should have some expectation placed upon you to say who you lent it to.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

s2art said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Then the nature of the offence would be 'allowing a vehicle to be used in an illegal manner', the defence for which would be 'I cannot be held responsible for the unreasonable actions of others, thats what the police are there for'.

However if you lend them the means to carry out that act then maybe you should hold some responsibility. If you own a vehicle and lend it to someone then you should take reasonable steps to ensure they do not act unreasonably and should also be helpfull in their prosecution should they act in an unreasonable way.

You cannot absolve yourself of any responsibility if your initial inaction would have prevented their unreasonable behaviour.

You lend someone a car. They kill someone driving dangerously, have no driving licence or insurance for your vehicle. Would you suggest you have no responsibility in that matter? At least in helping to identify who was driving your car at the time?

Sure, but as long as you can 'Plead the fifth' and it cant be used against you.

I personaly feel in the incident outlined above where your vehicle was used in an incident of death by dangerous driving that if you know who was driving and refuse to identify them then I do feel you should be held culpable in some way. I understand the point with regards 172 and it use for speed cameras. Don't agree with it but do understand it.

[s2art]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

s2art said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Then the nature of the offence would be 'allowing a vehicle to be used in an illegal manner', the defence for which would be 'I cannot be held responsible for the unreasonable actions of others, thats what the police are there for'.

However if you lend them the means to carry out that act then maybe you should hold some responsibility. If you own a vehicle and lend it to someone then you should take reasonable steps to ensure they do not act unreasonably and should also be helpfull in their prosecution should they act in an unreasonable way.

You cannot absolve yourself of any responsibility if your initial inaction would have prevented their unreasonable behaviour.

You lend someone a car. They kill someone driving dangerously, have no driving licence or insurance for your vehicle. Would you suggest you have no responsibility in that matter? At least in helping to identify who was driving your car at the time?

Sure, but as long as you can 'Plead the fifth' and it cant be used against you.

I personaly feel in the incident outlined above where your vehicle was used in an incident of death by dangerous driving that if you know who was driving and refuse to identify them then I do feel you should be held culpable in some way. I understand the point with regards 172 and it use for speed cameras. Don't agree with it but do understand it.

'Pleading the fifth' just means you refuse to incriminate yourself.

[cen]

I believe litigation would only be actionable if you went to court and offered the human rights act (article 6) in your defence which was then ignored resulting in a conviction of S.172 which retrospectively landed you with a criminal conviction and record.

Civil action would need to be considered in the Law of Tort for damages thereof.

[tigger1]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Then the nature of the offence would be 'allowing a vehicle to be used in an illegal manner', the defence for which would be 'I cannot be held responsible for the unreasonable actions of others, thats what the police are there for'.

However if you lend them the means to carry out that act then maybe you should hold some responsibility. If you own a vehicle and lend it to someone then you should take reasonable steps to ensure they do not act unreasonably and should also be helpfull in their prosecution should they act in an unreasonable way.

You cannot absolve yourself of any responsibility if your initial inaction would have prevented their unreasonable behaviour.

You lend someone a car. They kill someone driving dangerously, have no driving licence or insurance for your vehicle. Would you suggest you have no responsibility in that matter? At least in helping to identify who was driving your car at the time?

There's a big difference between lending a relative your car (who is insured, holds a valid license etc) and giving it to somebody who you know to be drunk, uninsured, 14 years old etc etc...

[Mr_annie_vxr]

tigger1 said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Then the nature of the offence would be 'allowing a vehicle to be used in an illegal manner', the defence for which would be 'I cannot be held responsible for the unreasonable actions of others, thats what the police are there for'.

However if you lend them the means to carry out that act then maybe you should hold some responsibility. If you own a vehicle and lend it to someone then you should take reasonable steps to ensure they do not act unreasonably and should also be helpfull in their prosecution should they act in an unreasonable way.

You cannot absolve yourself of any responsibility if your initial inaction would have prevented their unreasonable behaviour.

You lend someone a car. They kill someone driving dangerously, have no driving licence or insurance for your vehicle. Would you suggest you have no responsibility in that matter? At least in helping to identify who was driving your car at the time?

There's a big difference between lending a relative your car (who is insured, holds a valid license etc) and giving it to somebody who you know to be drunk, uninsured, 14 years old etc etc...

However if they go on to commit offences I think its reasonable that an expectation be placed upon you to identify them. I would not expect you to have any culpability for the offence they committed if they were lawfully entitled to drive the vehicle. Its not just the un-insured who kill people as a result of dangerous driving.

I agree there is a huge difference. If you let someone drive your car who is 14 or has no licence then you are culpable and indeed would face charge/summons. By ensuring they are entitled to drive you negate those offences but do not negate your responsibility for their being in your vehicle when they commit an offence.

[fluffnik]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

However if you lend them the means to carry out that act then maybe you should hold some responsibility. If you own a vehicle and lend it to someone then you should take reasonable steps to ensure they do not act unreasonably and should also be helpfull in their prosecution should they act in an unreasonable way.

It's the speed limits, not the speeding that is unreasonable.

I feel no need to aid the prosecution of bad laws.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

fluffnik said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

However if you lend them the means to carry out that act then maybe you should hold some responsibility. If you own a vehicle and lend it to someone then you should take reasonable steps to ensure they do not act unreasonably and should also be helpfull in their prosecution should they act in an unreasonable way.

It's the speed limits, not the speeding that is unreasonable.

I feel no need to aid the prosecution of bad laws.

Does that also apply to death by dangerous old chap or just speeding? Some speeding in the wrong place at the wrong time is unreasonable though isnt't it? 90 past a school at lunch time as the kids use the road to cross and buy there healthy lunches?

This is where you lose me fluff. You see I do think we need limits but agree there should be some discussion as to what and where they are.

[fluffnik]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

However if they go on to commit offences I think its reasonable that an expectation be placed upon you to identify them.

That expectation could compromise the right not to self incriminate.

That's a nono in my book.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

fluffnik said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

However if they go on to commit offences I think its reasonable that an expectation be placed upon you to identify them.

That expectation could compromise the right not to self incriminate.

That's a nono in my book.

On a slight tangent to that. Do you not think that the right thing to do if you do something wrong is to admit that or do you advocate denying all responsibility for your actions unless there is no way out? Or is it you just don't like being caught speeding. (i'm kinda hoping the latter as on some threads you do appear to have strong morals that I have agreed with).

Edited by Mr_annie_vxr on Thursday 28th June 16:53

[fluffnik]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

fluffnik said:

I feel no need to aid the prosecution of bad laws.

Does that also apply to death by dangerous old chap or just speeding? Some speeding in the wrong place at the wrong time is unreasonable though isnt't it? 90 past a school at lunch time as the kids use the road to cross and buy there healthy lunches?

I think the right not to incriminate oneself is absolute.

I didn't think S172 was used in Death by, manslaughter/culpable homicide and the like due to self incrimination worries anyway...

Mr_annie_vxr said:

This is where you lose me fluff. You see I do think we need limits but agree there should be some discussion as to what and where they are.

"90 past a school at lunch time as the kids use the road to cross and buy [their] healthy lunches" is not a speeding offence, what does it matter if there's a limit or not?