Speed Cameras and Human Rights
Discussion
IMHO the only way the ever increasing use of scameras can be discredited is by citing the way in which our rights in law have been eroded. To fight it on the basis of 'I want to speed as I don't consider it dangerous' will never, ever succeed. The vested interests of cash collection will see to that supported by spin, lies and obfuscation. This is a gov't thing, remember.
However, and not enough is made of this, the requirement to self-incriminate is a serious erosion of our hard-won rights going back centuries.
That there exists a requirement to self-incriminate cannot be denied. If you are the keeper and know yourself to be the driver, then if you fail to provide evidence sufficient to convict, then you shall be found guilty of failing to confess.
Not since torture was abolished in the mid-1600's has a confession under duress been required. This is the very first time the right to silence has been deemed no-applicable. How long before it happens in other areas of the law?
The right to silence and not to self-incriminate is a basic right under English law and this legislation overturns it.
This is what me must fight and be prepared to go all the way with it.
Civil disobedience overturned the poll tax and can do so here. It just needs us all to stand together and plead not-guilty to every scamera offence. Refuse to complete the NIP, go to court, plead not-guilty, insist on all the evidence, demand the calibration certificates every time, demand that your human rights be respected, refuse to pay the fines, let them arrest you for non-payment, some must be prepared to go to gaol. This is what happened with the poll tax and it worked.
If we are not prepared to get organised in this way, then be prepared for total speed limit enforcement within 10 years with no one able to speed anywhere anytime.
This is the reality, so where do you all stand individually on this? How strong are you and your convictions?
However, and not enough is made of this, the requirement to self-incriminate is a serious erosion of our hard-won rights going back centuries.
That there exists a requirement to self-incriminate cannot be denied. If you are the keeper and know yourself to be the driver, then if you fail to provide evidence sufficient to convict, then you shall be found guilty of failing to confess.
Not since torture was abolished in the mid-1600's has a confession under duress been required. This is the very first time the right to silence has been deemed no-applicable. How long before it happens in other areas of the law?
The right to silence and not to self-incriminate is a basic right under English law and this legislation overturns it.
This is what me must fight and be prepared to go all the way with it.
Civil disobedience overturned the poll tax and can do so here. It just needs us all to stand together and plead not-guilty to every scamera offence. Refuse to complete the NIP, go to court, plead not-guilty, insist on all the evidence, demand the calibration certificates every time, demand that your human rights be respected, refuse to pay the fines, let them arrest you for non-payment, some must be prepared to go to gaol. This is what happened with the poll tax and it worked.
If we are not prepared to get organised in this way, then be prepared for total speed limit enforcement within 10 years with no one able to speed anywhere anytime.
This is the reality, so where do you all stand individually on this? How strong are you and your convictions?
Don't give a $h*t, I am leaving this country in the next 5 years 
No really you are right and what you say is true, but apathy in this country is ripe and I for one cannot be arsed.
I have too little time with my family too much time working, and not enough time to dedicate to fighting this.
Sorry
No really you are right and what you say is true, but apathy in this country is ripe and I for one cannot be arsed.
I have too little time with my family too much time working, and not enough time to dedicate to fighting this.
Sorry
Cooperman said:
IMHO the only way the ever increasing use of scameras can be discredited is by citing the way in which our rights in law have been eroded. To fight it on the basis of 'I want to speed as I don't consider it dangerous' will never, ever succeed. The vested interests of cash collection will see to that supported by spin, lies and obfuscation. This is a gov't thing, remember.
However, and not enough is made of this, the requirement to self-incriminate is a serious erosion of our hard-won rights going back centuries.
That there exists a requirement to self-incriminate cannot be denied. If you are the keeper and know yourself to be the driver, then if you fail to provide evidence sufficient to convict, then you shall be found guilty of failing to confess.
Not since torture was abolished in the mid-1600's has a confession under duress been required. This is the very first time the right to silence has been deemed no-applicable. How long before it happens in other areas of the law?
The right to silence and not to self-incriminate is a basic right under English law and this legislation overturns it.
This is what me must fight and be prepared to go all the way with it.
Civil disobedience overturned the poll tax and can do so here. It just needs us all to stand together and plead not-guilty to every scamera offence. Refuse to complete the NIP, go to court, plead not-guilty, insist on all the evidence, demand the calibration certificates every time, demand that your human rights be respected, refuse to pay the fines, let them arrest you for non-payment, some must be prepared to go to gaol. This is what happened with the poll tax and it worked.
If we are not prepared to get organised in this way, then be prepared for total speed limit enforcement within 10 years with no one able to speed anywhere anytime.
This is the reality, so where do you all stand individually on this? How strong are you and your convictions?
You first then...
After you mate...
Go on , I'll do it in a minute...
Honest I'm right behind you...
Absolutely, we all agree, you go we'll follow...
Reality is what you see on PHeads is a concentrated essence of public opinion. In reality no-one can be arsed. It's not a new thing, We the British People have acted likje this for centuries. Speed issues are just the latest topic to create open dissent followed by promises for positive action, justa nose ahead of others commenting as per the above examples...
As for the right to silence - this is no more in any case - a court can draw certain inferences that it deems proper in the circumsatnces, from refusals to answer questions during the investigation of an offence. This must of course be related to the refusal to answer questions based on evidence to hand...
So whilst personally, I can see the point of such arguments i.e. stand up for your rights, in reality they've already been trodden on and taht fact accepted.
Now with NIP's the situation is very similar...
You are presented with fact - you are the registered keeper of a vehicle.
You are presented with another fact - At time, date, place, the vehicle was driven in excess of the speed limit = an offence.
you are asked a question - who was the driver at time,date,place of the offence?
So therefore account for these facts......
Refusal to answer = something to hide...inference drawn, prosecuted for failing to supply driver details.
You may not like the legislation, but remove this bit and linked legislation in realtion to dsiclosure of drivers at the time of accidents etc will soon generate its own public outcry....
Imagine....
Bring back self-incrimination, don't let them get away with destroying my car during the accident... March for the right to self-incrimination....
You first then...
After you mate...
Go on , I'll do it in a minute...
Honest I'm right behind you...
Absolutely, we all agree, you go we'll follow...
See the irony that is being British....
Tivster
The trouble is that speed fines are so piffling that no one can be arsed to take it all the way to the European Court.
IIRC section 6 of the Human Rights Act (the one introduced a couple of years ago. Hope I have the correct name here) enshrines the right to non-incrimination and should take precedence over the current demand for disclosure in a NIP.
UKgov deserves a proper kicking on this one.
IIRC section 6 of the Human Rights Act (the one introduced a couple of years ago. Hope I have the correct name here) enshrines the right to non-incrimination and should take precedence over the current demand for disclosure in a NIP.
UKgov deserves a proper kicking on this one.
Godfrey H said:
Actually Idris Francis is taking the self-incrimination issue all the way to the ECHR. The problem is it will be another two years before there is a judgment.
And then the British Government may turn around and remind everyone that we voluntarily comply the European Human Rights Legislation.... We are not a fully signed up signatory to it as too much of the content conflicts with British Law. This is due to other European Legislation being either too simplistic or too bloody complex to apply.
This then defeats the object of the intended law and rather ironically then disadvantages those it was designed to protect. Take a look at the crap that relates to Agriculural Policy
Sorry Tiviser have to disagree with most of your comments on here. The ECHR takes president over all UK law. The ECHR was originally a treaty obligations but in now a requirement of membership of the EU, it has also been incorporated into UK with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). While the HRA 1998 allows UK judges to rule on human rights issues the European Court of Human Rights in Luxembourg still has president.
With regard to the ECHR this does not include a specific reference to the right to silence but Article 6 does guarantee a fair trial and in Ernest Saunders v United Kingdom ECHR 1996 the conviction in the Guinness trail was found to be in breech of Article 6 ECHR because the conviction was based on evidence obtain in a DTI inquiry in which the defendant had no right to silence. If Idris Francis wins her appeal then the NIP system will have to be scrapped and any convictions which have raised the issue will be overturned. A Government could not just ignore the decision as the decision would set a president for every UK court. To reverse the president the UK would have to leave the EU.
You are correct that a UK court can draw certain inferences from a defendant exercising his right to silence but you should be aware that such inference can only be considered where there is other compelling evidence. This is not appropriate in speeding cases, even if it where without the NIP the whole system would breakdown; there is no way the court system could deal with 1mm cases a year.
How can anyone help easy join the Association of British Drivers and contribute to Idris Francis legal fees.
One final comment the NIP was introduced in the RTA 1988 by a Conservative Government.
With regard to the ECHR this does not include a specific reference to the right to silence but Article 6 does guarantee a fair trial and in Ernest Saunders v United Kingdom ECHR 1996 the conviction in the Guinness trail was found to be in breech of Article 6 ECHR because the conviction was based on evidence obtain in a DTI inquiry in which the defendant had no right to silence. If Idris Francis wins her appeal then the NIP system will have to be scrapped and any convictions which have raised the issue will be overturned. A Government could not just ignore the decision as the decision would set a president for every UK court. To reverse the president the UK would have to leave the EU.
You are correct that a UK court can draw certain inferences from a defendant exercising his right to silence but you should be aware that such inference can only be considered where there is other compelling evidence. This is not appropriate in speeding cases, even if it where without the NIP the whole system would breakdown; there is no way the court system could deal with 1mm cases a year.
How can anyone help easy join the Association of British Drivers and contribute to Idris Francis legal fees.
One final comment the NIP was introduced in the RTA 1988 by a Conservative Government.
Tony - yep you got me bang to rights on a few issues.
There may be an issue of existing members of the EU who were previous conditional signatories to the draft EU HR Proposals, still having a getout for new HR legislation that contravenes the existing rights for members of those signatory states.
Whilst The Human Rights Act 1988 has become part of the UK Constitution, it still has as far as I'm aware, several loopholes that remain to be challenged by exploits of existing Criminal Law....
The precedents that the ECHR has over our legislation will be challenged at every turn from a Criminal Law point of view....
Just my opinion... in fact the Europeans can take their decrepid legal system and park it right up their Jaques Chirac....
Tivster
>> Edited by Tivster on Wednesday 13th August 16:57
There may be an issue of existing members of the EU who were previous conditional signatories to the draft EU HR Proposals, still having a getout for new HR legislation that contravenes the existing rights for members of those signatory states.
Whilst The Human Rights Act 1988 has become part of the UK Constitution, it still has as far as I'm aware, several loopholes that remain to be challenged by exploits of existing Criminal Law....
The precedents that the ECHR has over our legislation will be challenged at every turn from a Criminal Law point of view....
Just my opinion... in fact the Europeans can take their decrepid legal system and park it right up their Jaques Chirac....
Tivster
>> Edited by Tivster on Wednesday 13th August 16:57
tonybav said:
Sorry Tiviser have to disagree with most of your comments on here. The ECHR takes president over all UK law. The ECHR was originally a treaty obligations but in now a requirement of membership of the EU, it has also been incorporated into UK with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). While the HRA 1998 allows UK judges to rule on human rights issues the European Court of Human Rights in Luxembourg still has president.
With regard to the ECHR this does not include a specific reference to the right to silence but Article 6 does guarantee a fair trial and in Ernest Saunders v United Kingdom ECHR 1996 the conviction in the Guinness trail was found to be in breech of Article 6 ECHR because the conviction was based on evidence obtain in a DTI inquiry in which the defendant had no right to silence. If Idris Francis wins her appeal then the NIP system will have to be scrapped and any convictions which have raised the issue will be overturned. A Government could not just ignore the decision as the decision would set a president for every UK court. To reverse the president the UK would have to leave the EU.
You are correct that a UK court can draw certain inferences from a defendant exercising his right to silence but you should be aware that such inference can only be considered where there is other compelling evidence. This is not appropriate in speeding cases, even if it where without the NIP the whole system would breakdown; there is no way the court system could deal with 1mm cases a year.
How can anyone help easy join the Association of British Drivers and contribute to Idris Francis legal fees.
One final comment the NIP was introduced in the RTA 1988 by a Conservative Government.
we went trow this one before mounths ago.
i managed to find a jugment in a teroist case
that seem to overe rull the excuse the priviy council made that public safty over ruled the right to silence.
the case conserning a teroist case at the strasburg
stated that even in that case that the public intrest
cout not over rule the basic right to silence and a far trial.
if carls reading this
have you still got that link i lost it againg.
and cant be assed to search for it againg
So what is the latest on the Idris francis case, as it seems that this will set the predcedent for un-signed NIP's, or even refusals to complete the NIP at all.
If/when Idris Francis wins, as seems likely, what are the implications for refunds, etc. Presumably those who just signed the NIP's will be deemed to have made a voluntary confession, but the others??
Very interesting
If/when Idris Francis wins, as seems likely, what are the implications for refunds, etc. Presumably those who just signed the NIP's will be deemed to have made a voluntary confession, but the others??
Very interesting
Tivster said:
There may be an issue of existing members of the EU who were previous conditional signatories to the draft EU HR Proposals, still having a getout for new HR legislation that contravenes the existing rights for members of those signatory states.
Whilst The Human Rights Act 1988 has become part of the UK Constitution, it still has as far as I'm aware, several loopholes that remain to be challenged by exploits of existing Criminal Law....
The precedents that the ECHR has over our legislation will be challenged at every turn from a Criminal Law point of view....
Just my opinion... in fact the Europeans can take their decrepid legal system and park it right up their Jaques Chirac....
Not being pedantic Tivster but....
1) You are correct that there are some get out clauses in the ECHR but these only apply where there is a serious threat to the state such as terrorism. For example the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1998 allows non UK national to be imprisoned with out trial if they are suspected of terrorism.
2) The UK does not have a constitution the legal system is based on courts of authority setting precedents. For the reasons set out above the only criminal cases not covered by the ECHR are those dealing with terrorism.
3) In all other cases the ECHR applies and unless we renounce the treaty, and repeal the HRA 1998, and leave the EU then the precedent will apply.
4) The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. The UK ratified the treaty in 1951 and it has subsequently been ratified by more than 40 other countries, including, Turkey, Bulgaria and Azerbaijan!!! It is funded by the states which have ratified the treaty. The only connection with the EU is that EU membership requires that you are a signatory to the treaty.
With regard to the ECHR please do not think I defend all the actions of the Court. In my view the Court has overstepped its authority in a number of instances and has allowed itself to be involved in areas which are well beyond what most of us would regard as human right issues. For example the Hatton and Others V UK, regarding the planning application for T5 at Heathrow and that the noise from night flights is the court at its worst.
Now my turn to apologise, the Court is in Strasburg, not Luxembourg, and of cause president in my last post should have read precedent, dam spell checks.
>> Edited by tonybav on Thursday 14th August 08:46
nubbin said:
Not being pedantic Tivster but....
Now my turn to apologise, the Court is in Strasburg, not Luxembourg, and of cause president in my last post should have read precedent, dam spell checks.
Not to be pedantic, tonybav, but it's Strasbourg, and DAMN spell checks
Irony does not work on hear I guess. Maybe I will try ironing next time.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff