Motorist ban law to be challenged
Discussion
Read this in yesterday's Sunday Mail (Scottish paper for those who don't know!) -
HUNDREDS of driving convictions could be put in doubt when they are challenged by a leading human rights lawyer tomorrow.
Iain Smith will argue that the charge of driving while disqualified breaches the European Convention on Human Rights.
Smith, of solicitors Keegan Smith, rocked the Scots legal system four years ago with a human rights challenge which led to the removal of 129 temporary sheriffs.
He will make his latest move at Linlithgow Sheriff Court.
The lawyer said: "The charge of driving while disqualified discloses that the accused person already has a conviction for a motoring offence.
"It is a fundamental part of Scots Law that previous convictions are not revealed to a jury until after the verdict.
"There is a case to be made that the disclosure of previous convictions is a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees the accused a fair trial."
Smith said that people caught behind the wheel in defiance of a court ban should instead be charged with driving without a licence.
Any previous conviction or driving ban could then be revealed to the court after the jury returned a verdict.
Last night, one legal expert warned if the move succeeded it could lead to a flood of appeals by drivers who have been convicted of driving while disqualified.
He added: "Every case since the EHCR was incorporated into Scots Law in 1997 will be put under the microscope if this succeeds."
The link:
www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/newsfeeds/page.cfm?objectid=13222135&method=full&siteid=86024
HUNDREDS of driving convictions could be put in doubt when they are challenged by a leading human rights lawyer tomorrow.
Iain Smith will argue that the charge of driving while disqualified breaches the European Convention on Human Rights.
Smith, of solicitors Keegan Smith, rocked the Scots legal system four years ago with a human rights challenge which led to the removal of 129 temporary sheriffs.
He will make his latest move at Linlithgow Sheriff Court.
The lawyer said: "The charge of driving while disqualified discloses that the accused person already has a conviction for a motoring offence.
"It is a fundamental part of Scots Law that previous convictions are not revealed to a jury until after the verdict.
"There is a case to be made that the disclosure of previous convictions is a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees the accused a fair trial."
Smith said that people caught behind the wheel in defiance of a court ban should instead be charged with driving without a licence.
Any previous conviction or driving ban could then be revealed to the court after the jury returned a verdict.
Last night, one legal expert warned if the move succeeded it could lead to a flood of appeals by drivers who have been convicted of driving while disqualified.
He added: "Every case since the EHCR was incorporated into Scots Law in 1997 will be put under the microscope if this succeeds."
The link:
www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/newsfeeds/page.cfm?objectid=13222135&method=full&siteid=86024
So just whose human rights have been affected? The banned driver, who was probably banned because he was a danger to others, or the other road users, who were subjected to the potential actions of a dangerous driver?
I somehow doubt the ECHR legislation was written to cover this situation.
I somehow doubt the ECHR legislation was written to cover this situation.
If you would have read the article you would have picked up on the fact that it's all to do with The Right to a Fair Trial, namely Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.
The point being made by the lawyer is that Article 6 has been breached since the driver cannot expect a fair trial as the "charge of driving whilst disqualified discloses that the accused person already has a conviction for a motoring offence".
I wonder how this would fair with magistrates since they also have your entire driving record in front of them whilst considering punishment for the current offence.
The point being made by the lawyer is that Article 6 has been breached since the driver cannot expect a fair trial as the "charge of driving whilst disqualified discloses that the accused person already has a conviction for a motoring offence".
I wonder how this would fair with magistrates since they also have your entire driving record in front of them whilst considering punishment for the current offence.
Considering past history when deciding on punishment is one thing, not that same as knowing the previous while deciding on guilt or otherwise for the current alledged offence.
Just goes to show what a mess the ECHR is making of our entire legal system ......
I'm sure there must be something in there about disqualifying someone from driving being an infringement of their civil liberty ........ I wish!
Just goes to show what a mess the ECHR is making of our entire legal system ......
I'm sure there must be something in there about disqualifying someone from driving being an infringement of their civil liberty ........ I wish!
I think this will fail.
The offence charged is a specific offence and that of driving whilst disqualified. All this means is that the person is banned from driving. It does not mean that it reveals a conviction for the reason behind the ban.
This could ultimately mean that the courts cannot ban anyone for anything because the fact they are banned will mean they have appeared in court before.
I think this lawyer is just another who is trying to make a lot of cash and a bigger name for himself. Banned drivers are usually those who have committed the most serious offences (save totting up for minor offences). The offenders against this offence are usually those who have the scantest regard for any laws. ECHR has an enormous benefit in some areas for the protection of citizens. In other areas, it is being used to prejudice laws which the ECHR was not designed in its conception to do.
The offence charged is a specific offence and that of driving whilst disqualified. All this means is that the person is banned from driving. It does not mean that it reveals a conviction for the reason behind the ban.
This could ultimately mean that the courts cannot ban anyone for anything because the fact they are banned will mean they have appeared in court before.
I think this lawyer is just another who is trying to make a lot of cash and a bigger name for himself. Banned drivers are usually those who have committed the most serious offences (save totting up for minor offences). The offenders against this offence are usually those who have the scantest regard for any laws. ECHR has an enormous benefit in some areas for the protection of citizens. In other areas, it is being used to prejudice laws which the ECHR was not designed in its conception to do.
lucozade said:
The point being made by the lawyer is that Article 6 has been breached since the driver cannot expect a fair trial as the "charge of driving whilst disqualified discloses that the accused person already has a conviction for a motoring offence".
Not necessarily, as the new Child support act allows those who do not pay their maintenance to be disqualified by the courts.
madcop said:
lucozade said:
The point being made by the lawyer is that Article 6 has been breached since the driver cannot expect a fair trial as the "charge of driving whilst disqualified discloses that the accused person already has a conviction for a motoring offence".
Not necessarily, as the new Child support act allows those who do not pay their maintenance to be disqualified by the courts.
That's a bit off isn't it!?!?
"You can't pay so we'll make sure you have even more trouble earning money!"
Edited to add 2000th post! Hurah!
>> Edited by Alan420 on Monday 28th July 11:18
What's most alarming about that is that the CSA is a most inequitable, unbending and unreasonable institution as is the family court system.
It's just another power which vindictive women can use to fcuk up their ex's life, after having got his house, his cars, his children, child support. She can refuse to allow visits and the court will refuse to enforce them. And now, the same grossly one-sided legal system can take licenses away????
Give it a year and let's see how many women have had their licenses confiscated in this manner.
If I were in this position, I wouldn't think twice about driving whilst disqualified. Fcuk em all. Of course, not having much to lose anymore, I'd have to go the whole hog - in for a penny, in for a pound etc... false plates, no tax, MOT or insurance. The lot.
See how this twisted manipulative state just actually criminalises more and more people? Fantastic.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 28th July 11:27
It's just another power which vindictive women can use to fcuk up their ex's life, after having got his house, his cars, his children, child support. She can refuse to allow visits and the court will refuse to enforce them. And now, the same grossly one-sided legal system can take licenses away????
Give it a year and let's see how many women have had their licenses confiscated in this manner.
If I were in this position, I wouldn't think twice about driving whilst disqualified. Fcuk em all. Of course, not having much to lose anymore, I'd have to go the whole hog - in for a penny, in for a pound etc... false plates, no tax, MOT or insurance. The lot.
See how this twisted manipulative state just actually criminalises more and more people? Fantastic.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 28th July 11:27
CarZee said:
If I were in this position, I wouldn't think twice about driving whilst disqualified. Fcuk em all.
This is so wrong it's
This country pampers far too much to the 'victim'. In this case at the alomst total expense of a man who may, for all the system knows, or cares, have done NOTHING!
Like I said, Alan, I reckon it's a ruse - it's easier for the govt to compensate victims of crime than to prevent them becoming victims in the first place.
It's the sort of 'creative solution' that you see in the corporate world all the time. Utterly absurd.
Example: The reason we don't have smart chip & pin no. security on Credit Cards in the UK is that it's cheaper for the CC companies to compensate victims of fraud (underwriting the costs) than it is to prevent the fraud in the first place.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 28th July 12:07
It's the sort of 'creative solution' that you see in the corporate world all the time. Utterly absurd.
Example: The reason we don't have smart chip & pin no. security on Credit Cards in the UK is that it's cheaper for the CC companies to compensate victims of fraud (underwriting the costs) than it is to prevent the fraud in the first place.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 28th July 12:07
madcop said:
I think this will fail.
The offence charged is a specific offence and that of driving whilst disqualified. All this means is that the person is banned from driving. It does not mean that it reveals a conviction for the reason behind the ban.
This could ultimately mean that the courts cannot ban anyone for anything because the fact they are banned will mean they have appeared in court before.
I think this lawyer is just another who is trying to make a lot of cash and a bigger name for himself. Banned drivers are usually those who have committed the most serious offences (save totting up for minor offences). The offenders against this offence are usually those who have the scantest regard for any laws. ECHR has an enormous benefit in some areas for the protection of citizens. In other areas, it is being used to prejudice laws which the ECHR was not designed in its conception to do.
...Don't you mean
"I hope it will fail"
Im know I do.
Very good points made, as ever Madcop.
madcop said:
I think this will fail.
The offence charged is a specific offence and that of driving whilst disqualified. All this means is that the person is banned from driving. It does not mean that it reveals a conviction for the reason behind the ban.
This could ultimately mean that the courts cannot ban anyone for anything because the fact they are banned will mean they have appeared in court before.
I think this lawyer is just another who is trying to make a lot of cash and a bigger name for himself. Banned drivers are usually those who have committed the most serious offences (save totting up for minor offences). The offenders against this offence are usually those who have the scantest regard for any laws. ECHR has an enormous benefit in some areas for the protection of citizens. In other areas, it is being used to prejudice laws which the ECHR was not designed in its conception to do.
They want the offence to be recorded before the court as 'Driving without a licence' so that the court does not know that the driver was banned, and hence gets the same treatment as someone who doesn't have a licence as they have (for example) not passed their test, or have had it removed due to medical grounds.
The banned part will only come out and be used during the sentencing.
MilnerR said:
Another opportunity for me to have a go at solicitors........ managed to resist though thieving b**tards
(D'oh!)
Solicitors, Lawyers, call them what you will....
One afternoon, a wealthy lawyer was riding in the back of his limousine when he saw two men eating grass by the roadside. He ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate.
"Why are you eating grass?" he asked one man.
"We don't have any money for food." the poor man replied.
"Oh, come along with me then."
"But sir, I have a wife with two children!"
"Bring them along! And you, come with us too!", he said to the other man.
"But sir, I have a wife with six children!" the second man answered.
"Bring them as well!"
They all climbed into the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as large as the limo. Once underway, one of the poor fellows says, "Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you."
The lawyer replied, "No problem, the grass at my home is about two feet tall."
MilnerR said:
Another opportunity for me to have a go at solicitors........ managed to resist though
(D'oh!)
Solicitors don't make the law. You and I only use them cos we don't have a full grasp of the law ourselves. There are changes afoot to make legislation less archaic and wordy so the lay ppl can read and understand it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff