|
Does this apply to both fixed cameras and mobile units? I ask because a mobile unit has a human witness, ie the policeman operating the unit, & I wonder if this makes a difference.
|
Very interesting HJ.
Without the full text of what went on and I would like to run this passed P.U. but.....
Report says that he was prosecuted for speeding and was found not guilty because he had not signed the form. By not signing the form I presume they reverted from Conditional Offer to a Court prosecution which was bound to fail because, as they state, the prosecution were unable to identify the driver.
CPS Boob?
Should they not have instituted proceedings for failing to name the driver?
DVD
|
>>Should they not have instituted proceedings for failing to name the driver?
He named himself as the driver so they couldn't get him on that, he just didn't sign the form which is the loophole isn't it or have I read it wrong.
So all the police revenue collection looks to be out the window until this is sorted, whoopeeee!!!!
|
V5D
I have never the seen the actual form (nor have I any wish to do so) but trying to apply logic to the situation then if they do not accept the form because it was not signed, then it must be worthless either way.
Section 9, CJA 1967 in any criminal proceedings an unsigned statement is not admissable but this in general terms deals with witness statements.Depends on what is on the form and any declaration at the end which is signed.
Somewhere, and I have yet to find is,is a reference under RTA's of evidence by certificate which may,or not shed some light.
Lack of full knowledge of the case makes things difficult for me which is why I would like to run my original post passed PU who may have more knowledge on the actual case and implications.
DVD
|
|
|
|
Seems good advice at the moment. Apprarantly there was a case in Brunstrom Country where a chap had sent his Notification identifying himself as the user at the time but "forgot" to sign it. He was found not guilty as the act does not stipulate that not to sign the form is an offence (in line with faliure to return it within the prescribed time) apprantly the clerk to the Mags said that it was "unfortunate" that he didn't and that eve if a Police Officer had called at the address and asked him to sign he couldn't be made to comply. A change in the law was called for - I imagine, despite the fact that this fair Nation is about to go to war, that it will be changed PDQ.
This is, of course, not legal advice but based on facts as reported to me recently. (I know I should have posted this when I read it on Wednesday !)
|
Thanks PU.
I thought your wigged friends might have been able to make an argument out that under Section 11/12 RT Offenders Act 1988 (evidence by certificate) that a signed statement in writing (note has to be signed) of an admission by an accused that he was the driver is acceptable as evidence of that fact in Court. Not signed of course it is not so. Conversely an unsigned name of driver is worthless so 172 has not been complied with. Whilst I appreciate that 12 RTOA this does not specifically cover speeding under RTRA it does apply to virtually every other RTA Offences.
But as you say everything seems to be up in the air and maybe this will force a clearer picture to emerge under the name and shame procedure.
DVD.
PS , Have you noted the LR load liner in the Classifieds???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks HJ. I wonder why it took so long to come to light? I recently sent one of these forms back but, happily, the police lost it and I've been very careful not to repeat the admission...
|
|
|
The whole system relies on motorists rolling over on their backs, accepting a fixed penalty notice and paying up.
Taken together with refusal to sign the form, the court overload if even ten percent of the two million NIP recipients went for a personal appearance would bring the criminal justice system to a halt.
I see a couple of people a day flashed. They will all get NIPs.
I also see four or five cases of dangerous driving and twenty or so cases of potentially dangerous vehicle faults. None of those will be prosecuted.
Priorities are wrong!
|
I see the original thread has been added to the Speed Camera Thread. Can I appeal to Mark to lock this one if he chooses, but if he could kindly leave it separate because I believe that there it is important that it doesn\'t get lost in the \"clutter\" of the SCT.
I have made some enquiries into the case in N. Wales, and following what I found out must warn against any Backroomer taking any rash action based on the finding in the case.
I am given to understand that the CPS are likely to appeal against this finding, and I would be seriously concerned if any readers fell into a trap based on press reports.
|
Given Pugugly's request, and his expertise in these matters, I will let this thread stand separately.
As a one-off, I will also allow the conversation to continue in this thread rather than the normal Speed Camera thread.
Aren't I nice......
|
"Aren't I nice......"
Yes
|
|
|
|
What loophole is this?
Ta
|
Isn't a person who signs the form incriminating themself?
So, on that basis alone, it would not be advisible to sign it.
|
JJ
Sounds a good argument.
As I understand English criminal law, an accused cannot be forced to incriminate himself.
Therefore maybe even a signed form naming himself as driver would be inadmissable.
|
Beings as I have a pending court case regarding a certain speeding offence, I'm willing to be the HJ Back Room guinea pig on this matter. :p
I'll send my form back tomorrow sans-signature and let you know how I get on.
|
The self-incrimination issue was tested early on the UK adoption of Human Rights Act. IIRC it was a Scots case just before E&W adopted the Act. The test failed basically, I tend to trust the judgment.
I would really Caution about Guinea Pigging but it will be interesting to see what happens none the less.
|
I would really Caution about Guinea Pigging but it will be interesting to see what happens none the less.
Can't see that I've got much to lose, I can just plead ignorance if much comes of it.
|
Just did my criminal litigation exam today. They have tested the s.172 provisions against the HRA, and the result came out in favour of s.172, unfortunately.
Charlebois v DPP is one of the cases on this point and seems to uphold it. I guess that PU is thinking of Jardine v Crowe, but that turns on a procedural, rather than substantial point, as far as I can tell.
s.172 (2) was held to breach Art. 6 in Brown v Stott [2000], another Scottish case, which referred to suspected drink driving. (How this wasn't concluded based on a brethalyser test is beyond me).
McLean [2001] narrows the point, admitting an interview that immediately followed a s.172 admission. Wilson [2001] allegedly applies Brown v Stott, stating that it does not infringe Art. 6, but my version of the law report doesn't say how, given that Brown v Stott appears to render s.172 incompatible with the ECHR.
Charlebois therefore appears to be the latest statement of the law, although given that no case law is cited and it is only a High Court case, I suspect that there is more room for manoeuvre on this than the courts have hitherto been willing to show.
As ever, this is not advice, just musings - and no liability is accepted. If you don't believe me, ask Hedley Byrne v Heller :-)
|
|
Idris Francis\'s application to the ECHR is alive and well. He claims the right to silence.
|
Any joy Fastshow?
Update are being posted here -> www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?t=34054&f=...0
Hope the external link to another site is OK? If not, please remove.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 21/10/2009 at 01:19
|
All the best, I hope you win!
Cheers
VD5D.
|
|
|
|
