Chris Wilson Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Hope it's not a repost: The European Court has rejected the cases of 2 UK motorists who were arguing that they had a legal right to silence, and to not indite themselves. The court decided this was removed by the legal requirement to tell Plod who was driving their cars when they were snapped. Nick Freemans' income just took a dive, I'd guess... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGav Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 oh bugger, this isn't good for the ol' pepipoo cases is it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil tt Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Thats not nice, now we will just have to slow down:d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewis Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 That is pretty significant. Your right to silence is borne from the right which you have to not incriminate yourself. For europe to say that you are forced to drop yourself in it is a major change to the UK justice system. Saying that, my memory is terrible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 What if two people both said they were driving? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colsoop Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Damn thats one less get out clause. I expect the other cases will follow suit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Walker Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Bugger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Class One Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 The problem with their legal argument was that Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was already as statute law prior to Britain adopting the European Convention on Human Rights and imposing the Human Rights Act. What is a little known fact, that if there was already a statute law in place prior to the adoption of the Covention of Human Rights, then the legislation of that country would supercede and not be in conflict with the Convention Protocols. The Road Traffic Act supercedes the Human Rights Act by 10 years. Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act is Prescribed by Law Is intended to acheive a legitimate objective Proportionate to the end that is to be acheived. It was a worthy challenge however, there are occasions where you do not have a right of silence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 there are occasions where you do not have a right of silence. Ah, you've met my missus then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 Ah, you've met my missus then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Class One Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 That is pretty significant. Your right to silence is borne from the right which you have to not incriminate yourself. For europe to say that you are forced to drop yourself in it is a major change to the UK justice system. Saying that, my memory is terrible But Lewis that is where the argument fails. You're not being asked to incriminate yourself, you're being asked to provide the identity of a driver as per your obligations under Sec 172 at the time of an alleged offence. There are certain times under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984) when you do not have to caution someone to ask them a question. One example is for a suspect to offer an explanation of events when an allegation is put to them in their presence and hearing of the person making the allegation. Another is when you are asked to provide your name and date of birth and address when you are being reported for a road traffic offence or when you are asked to produce your documents. This ruling from Strasbourg (whilst being unpopular) now clarifies without doubt the onus of a registered keeper of a motor vehicle when a question as to the identity of a driver at a given time and place is asked of them. I saw today, that a 77 year old father was jailed for Perverting the Course of Justice for 3 months for stating that he was the driver of a car when in fact it was his son, as his son was already on 9 points and looking at a ban. (he got 18months btw). There are still loopholes in the legislation, but the CPS and Courts are becoming all too aware of them. I just wish that more resources were made available for tackling real Criminal Justice and quality of life issues instead of chucking them into revenue making technology, or perhaps putting more traffic officers back on patrol who have powers of discretion and (sometimes ) common sense whereas the unblikning eye of a camera does not. So I personally don't see this as a blow to Human Rights, the right actually wasn't there in the first place, and all the ruling has done is just clarify that position. (Always available for private consulation ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewis Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 But Lewis that is where the argument fails. You're not being asked to incriminate yourself, you're being asked to provide the identity of a driver as per your obligations under Sec 172 at the time of an alleged offence. ........Unquoted most of it 'cos you talk too much You are absolutely correct (depending how you want to look at it). If you were aware of the driver being a third party and you refused to give the name then a)obstruction b) witholding evidence , the problem is that if it were you driving then you are being asked to incriminate yourself. Where PACE/RTOA can help you is that although you may be entitled to give the identity, a signiture is not required to satisfy PACE. The problem with NIP is the requirement of a signiture which constitutes an admission of guilt. Thereby....not signing the NIP and then being taken to court amounts to an unsigned statement (contrary to Sec12 RTOA) which cannot amount to confession as there is no evidence that the accused signed the notice. There are ways and means but to be honest - if you don't want to get caught, stick to the speed limit!! simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I saw this a few days ago, buried in the lunchtime news around the time Brown was taking over. It was explained by the junior Transport Minister that if the right to silence argument was upheld, then the only alternative would be to make the registered owner of the vehicle responsible for the offence. That in itself would cause problems as in many cases, they would be "convicting" an innocent person. I suppose TPTB would have to get their pound of flesh one way or another... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burna Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 What if two people both said they were driving? Not as green as you're cabbage looking are you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.