Potential collapse of speed camera laws

[dontlift]

Just got this via mail from safespeed

======================================================

Hi All,

The following letter has been forwarded to me by Mike of Pepipoo. It is
being sent today to the CPS by a solicitor in a normal signed form
speeding case:

=======================================================
Dear Sirs

Re: CASE REF NUMBER

Further to my previous correspondence regarding the above alleged
motoring offence:

I have been informed that the Honourable Mr Justice Owen has decided
[dpp v Yorke & Mawdesely 2003] that the Section 172 notice of the NIP
amounts to a voluntary confession made under the provisions of the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE].

I should be grateful if you would please detail why my legal rights
under the provisions of PACE were not explained to me prior to my
completion of the form.

I would like to submit the following skeleton argument and should be
grateful if you would ensure that I receive a substantive reply by
return:

1 The prosecution case is said to be based on a voluntary confession,
which has, as aforementioned, been made under the provisions of The
Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE].

2 I will submit that I was neither cautioned, nor offered an
explanation of my rights, prior to being required to complete the
voluntary confession (s172 of the NIP).

3 In the circumstances, I will submit that my rights under the
provisions of PACE have been breached.

4 I will further submit that, as I was deprived of my rights under
PACE, I have been deprived of my right, under Article 6 of the ECHR,
to a fair trial and that I may be the victim of a malicious
prosecution.

Under the circumstances therefore any prosecution is bound to fail.

In the light of this, you may wish to consider withdrawing your case
rather than waste the Court's and witness' time. In the event that
you decide to proceed with the case and my not guilty plea is
successful, I will make an application for my costs.

I look forward to hearing from you by return.
============================================================

If this solicitor is correct, then the defence is open to everyone and
the law has failed.

I'll carry news on the SafeSpeed "unsigned forms" pages as it happens.

www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html

--
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed

web: www.safespeed.org.uk

[M@H]

Blimey... !? So according to that, every speeding conviction based on a Signed NIP is open to being overturned.. !??

Matt.

[dontlift]

M@H said:

Blimey... !? So according to that, every speeding conviction based on a Signed NIP is open to being overturned.. !?? Matt.

All depends on what happens next, i doubt they would let the ship go down that easily

[rude girl]

That would be a bit on the side.

But think of the effect it would have on insurance - completely change risk profiles and reduce a lot of premiums. Risk would be measured on different scales, and I'm afraid that might not benefit us performance car drivers that much.

[Mr Peevly]

This seems to be a red herring.

The case in question was referring to the "unsigned" form and refers to that being possibly admissible as a 'confession' (although notes that in this case it was not even that as it was not filled in by the defendant).

This is NOT referring to a signed form.

[Tivster]

I'll do some digging here, but I think his argument may be flawed.... initial thoughts are

1. You're not signing the NIP you are signing a form disclosing the driver of a vehicle at a time when an offence has occurred. This is an obligation under the Road Traffic Act/Road Traffic Offenders Act to do so... it is this area that may be subject to question...

2. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code C deals with interviews and what contitutes an interview and this is the crux of what the author of the letter appears to be questioning....

I'll find the gumph and post ...

Tivster

[Tivster]

Found it -
PACE Code C 11.1A:

An interview is the questioning of a person regarding their involvement or suspected involvement in a criminal offence or offences which, under para 10.1 (cautioning), must be carried out under caution. Whenever a person is interviewed they must be informed of the nature of the offence, or further offence. Procedures under The Road Traffic Act 1988 or The Transport And Works Act 1992, Section 31 DO NOT CONSTITUTE INTERVIEWING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CODE.

Effectively this removes the need to be cautioned before the driver id form is filled out, as the procedure is not an interview. This also negates the requirement to offer legal advise or rights - again because this is not an interview.
This therefore negates the Human Rights aspect of the solicitors argument because there has been no breach of PACE.
IMO the only time this precise argument could be used would be if you attended the Police Station voluntarily and were asked the questions about driver ID, given the NIP etc there.

Sorry, but IMO this solicitor is wrong...

Tivster



>> Edited by Tivster on Thursday 21st August 09:37

[206xsi]

But the driver is still incriminating themselves - so Idris Francis' case under ECHR still stands....

[Tivster]

206xsi said:

But the driver is still incriminating themselves - so Idris Francis' case under ECHR still stands....

That's still a possibility - but this defence outlined here is just poorly informed. I bet this solicitor deals with Conveyancing and Wills for a living. He knows little about PACE.

[MR2Mike]

Mr Peevly said:

This seems to be a red herring. The case in question was referring to the "unsigned" form and refers to that being possibly admissible as a 'confession' (although notes that in this case it was not even that as it was not filled in by the defendant). This is NOT referring to a signed form.

As I read it, this has nothing whatsoever do to with unsigned forms. What the argument refers to is that a Judge has decided that an NIP is a voluntary confession, and as such may require the defendants rights to be disclosed to them before making such a confession.

[Mr Peevly]

"I have been informed that the Honourable Mr Justice Owen has decided [dpp v Yorke & Mawdesely 2003] that the Section 172 notice of the NIP amounts to a voluntary confession made under the provisions of the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE]."

This is simply INCORRECT! The Judge said that the UNSIGNED form MAY be admissible as a 'confession' but he would pass it back to the magistrates to consider.

No judgement on this was made.

This case (by the way it's 'Mawdesley') revolved around the fact that Yorke had not filled in the unsigned form, his agent had.

[Mr Peevly]

For those who are still awake

Mawdesley's case was returned to the courts for re-hearing.

Yorkes case was thrown out (he didn't fill in the form).

Note that these cases dealt with UNSIGNED forms - NOT signed ones.

Ruling conclusions:
"...
Mawdesley

The justices resolved the issue of whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case on the erroneous basis that the section 172 form was “a statement in writing…purporting to be signed by the accused” within the meaning of section 12 of the RTOA 1988. In those circumstances the conviction must be set aside. The question then arises as to whether the case should be remitted to the Justices for rehearing. Mr Laprell submitted that as the prosecution had presented the case on an erroneous basis, it would be unfair to the Appellant for the case to be remitted. I do not agree. The conviction will be set aside and the case remitted to the Warrington Justices for rehearing.

Yorke

As indicated in paragraph 46 above Mr Yorke’s conviction must be set aside. As there was no other evidence available to the prosecution upon which to prove the identity of the driver, it is not appropriate to remit the case to the Crown Court for a rehearing
..."

[safespeed]

I'm watching this with interest...

This part of the Y&M ruling seems pivotal:

"29. If it was properly to be inferred from the evidence that the entries in the unsigned section 172 forms were made by the Appellants, they amounted to confessions within the meaning of section 82(1) of PACE, and could be proved in accordance with section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which provides that..."

Now it seems clear to me that this makes the linkage with PACE and all the problems and requirements follow. The Y&M ruling is at:

www.safespeed.org.uk/yandm.html

Best Regards
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[chrisgr31]

I am confused! The NIP asks the registered keeper of the vehicle to state who was driving at the time, and it is a requirement under the Road Traffic Act or whatever it is to supply certain information.

That information is then used to either offer the named person 3 points and a fine, or to bring the named person to court.

Wasn't the judge saying that if you came to Court the information you supplied on the form was a confession under PACE.

Presumably it may be possible to argue that there is a requirement for the police to prove that the driver named on the NIP was actually driving at the time of the offense. The Judge argued that the NIP which was completed for a different purpose could be used, but then is evidence and thus a confession under PACE?

Dunno, suppose the answer is watch with interest!

[Mr Peevly]

safespeed said:

I'm watching this with interest... This part of the Y&M ruling seems pivotal: "29. If it was properly to be inferred from the evidence that the entries in the unsigned section 172 forms were made by the Appellants, they amounted to confessions within the meaning of section 82(1) of PACE, and could be proved in accordance with section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which provides that..." Now it seems clear to me that this makes the linkage with PACE and all the problems and requirements follow. The Y&M ruling is at: www.safespeed.org.uk/yandm.html Best Regards Paul Smith Safe Speed www.safespeed.org.uk

Please Please Please read the whole judgement.

37. But in any event I am satisfied that the requirement to provide information under section 172 falls within the exceptions to the need for a caution contained in the second part of C.10.1, which provides that a person need not be cautioned if questions are put “…to obtain information in accordance with any statutory requirement…”. The section 172 forms were sent to the Appellants for that purpose. It follows that in my judgment C.10.1 of the Code does not impose an obligation to caution in such circumstances. The same applies to the current edition of the Code which came into effect on 1 April 2003.

38. Accordingly an objection to the admission of such evidence on the basis of failure to comply with the code of Practice, could not have succeeded.

[Tivster]

Yes exactly - the whole crux of this as outlined in my previous posts is whether or not PACE applies. For any body wanting to comment on this topic - Please read my previous post...

The NIP is NOT the same as the request for driver information - they may appear on the same bit of paper but are two entirely different processes...hold on to that fact.
Now, as the requirement to provide driver identity sent to the recorded keeper of the said vehicle is issued under the Road Traffic Act, this process IS NOT an interview and therefore PACE DOES NOT apply. This is specifically listed under PACE Code C para 11.1.
So the solicitors letter - the subject of this post is fundementally incorrect even before we consider the ruling over the NIP's being signed or not....


Tivster

[safespeed]

Mr Peevly said:

Please Please Please read the whole judgement. 37. But in any event I am satisfied that the requirement to provide information under section 172 falls within the exceptions to the need for a caution contained in the second part of C.10.1, which provides that a person need not be cautioned if questions are put “…to obtain information in accordance with any statutory requirement…”. The section 172 forms were sent to the Appellants for that purpose. It follows that in my judgment C.10.1 of the Code does not impose an obligation to caution in such circumstances. The same applies to the current edition of the Code which came into effect on 1 April 2003. 38. Accordingly an objection to the admission of such evidence on the basis of failure to comply with the code of Practice, could not have succeeded.

Oh, I've read the whole judgement all right, many times.

But two issues remain.

1) If the linkage with PACE is complete then there's plenty of baggage in PACE that applies. It's not just the need for a caution.

2) Section 37 of the Y&M ruling purports to rule that a caution is not required if information is to be given in accordance with a statutory requirement. But section 29 elevates the information requirement to the level of a confession. These two sections appear to be in conflict.

Best Regards
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[pwig]

One other thing, speeding is not a criminal conviction, does that mean that it comes under a whole new set of laws?


Or am I speaking out my arse?

[Mr Peevly]

safespeed said:

Oh, I've read the whole judgement all right, many times. But two issues remain. 1) If the linkage with PACE is complete then there's plenty of baggage in PACE that applies. It's not just the need for a caution. 2) Section 37 of the Y&M ruling purports to rule that a caution is not required if information is to be given in accordance with a statutory requirement. But section 29 elevates the information requirement to the level of a confession. These two sections appear to be in conflict. Best Regards Paul Smith Safe Speed www.safespeed.org.uk

1) Not the case - The link to PACE is there but, as Tivster pointed out long ago, PACE has an exception for just such cases. This is also mentioned in the judgement [But in any event I am satisfied that the requirement to provide information under section 172 falls within the exceptions to the need for a caution contained in the second part of C.10.1, which provides that a person need not be cautioned if questions are put “…to obtain information in accordance with any statutory requirement…”. The section 172 forms were sent to the Appellants for that purpose. It follows that in my judgment C.10.1 of the Code does not impose an obligation to caution in such circumstances. The same applies to the current edition of the Code which came into effect on 1 April 2003.].

2) Read them in sequence and all will become clear

[alans]

pwig said:

One other thing, speeding is not a criminal conviction, does that mean that it comes under a whole new set of laws? Or am I speaking out my arse?

I was under the impression motoring offences are criminal, or you could not be sent to prison for speeding etc.