...but if they say it is illegal then what happens to all those wrongly (therefore) who have paid up, been disqualified, higher Insurance premiums etc etc etc.
A vertiable hornet nest which is shy they will go aggainst the appelants.
dvd
|
Surely it would only be binding in retrospect, when higher courts make a decision, it doesn't usually mean people dig up old cases made under previous interpretation.
Maybe they will decriminalise speeding, and it will be treated even more harshly with less evidence, as with TfL and parking penalties.
|
In other words, The JUDGEMENT is 'NO' :-)
Can't say I'm surprised.....
|
Their judgement noted that people "who choose to keep and drive cars" have implicitly "accepted certain responsibilities" under UK law.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. It is part of no-one's human rights to drive as fast as they like and then to wriggle out of the consequences.
|
This is the really serious bit.
Judges acknowledged that both men had been faced compulsion to provide information, but threw out their claim that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are "absolute rights".
This has serious implications for the whole british judicial system if the crown try and extend this into other cases.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
Case law referred to in the judgement indicates that these are not unconditional rights, so this is not ground-breaking.
|
"but threw out their claim that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are "absolute rights"
We haven't heard the last of this.
|
|
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. It is part of no-one's human rights to drive as fast as they like and then to wriggle out of the consequences.
At 47 in a 30 maybe the speedo was somehow registering his IQ.
|
I note the comment in the BBC?s report:
?The judges also pointed out that UK law made it clear that no offence has been committed if a car owner can prove that he or she did not know, and could not be expected to know, who was driving the vehicle.?
Of course, this is known already, but proving that you didn?t know something has meant this was a very uncertain defence. I wonder if these comments reinforce the case to simply say you don?t know who was driving?
|
As a person with an interest in the broad aspects of the law, rather than any specific experience of being a lawyer, I am concerned that a large group of alleged offenders are not given the legal protetection afforded by PACE. You could be suspected of shop-lifting and be taken away and given the opportunity to make a voluntary statement, incriminating or otherwise, but not without being cautioned so why should allegedly speeding motorists be treated differently?
|
|
Possibly because the camera provides the absolute evidence that makes any statement void. If you weren't the driver then fine, you have the opportunity to make this point before prosecution, but claiming not to be able to remember is plainly a load of pony and these two jokers should have known better.
|
but claiming not to be able to remember is plainly a load of pony and these two jokers should have known better.
It's a valid defense, proven by case law - "The Hamilton defense". However the human rights appeal was not about claiming not to remember. It's about the right to silence, not not incriminate oneself. A fundamental right enshrined in our laws for centuries.
Think how it'd be if pickpockets were treated in the same way:
'We have a CCTV picture of you picking pockets in the town centre. You must admit to the crime and accept a fixed penalty, or nominate someone else as having committed it, or go to court. If you don't do this we'll charge you for failing to identify a pickpocket, which carries the same penalty as pickpocketing.'
You also wouldn't be entitled to the full CCTV video unless you went to court, instead you might be allowed a couple of very blurry stills 'for the purposes of identifying the pickpocket' where it's impossible to make out if it's you or not.
The biggest problem with the whole self-incrimination thing is that it wouldn't be necessary if we didn't rely on automated enforcement. If speeding drivers who are driving at non-reckless speeds are so dangerous, then why do we allow up to two weeks to inform them that they've committed an offence? During that time they can continue to drive in the same manner, so it's not having the desired effect of slowing them down. If it's such a safety issue they should be stopped immediately, and given a ticket there and then so they can be taught a lesson to slow down.
|
SFAIK the two gentlemen did NOT say they couldn't remember who was driving - they said that they shouldn't be required to make a statement, incriminating themselves, without a PACE caution. As those of you watch the Bill etc will know, someone is arrested, taken to the police station and, broadly, invited to make a statement which may be used in evidence against him and if he raises something in his defence at a later date, which is not mentioned in the statement, it may harm his defence. He also has the right to remain silent and make NO statement. Why should it be different for a million motorists a year? Tell us who was driving and we'll fine you and give you 3 points - don't tell us who was driving and we'll still fine you £60 and give you 3 points. If speed cameras aren't about money why are fines given at all BTW?
|
The judgement of the court makes clear that driving is not an unfettered right, and the law specifically provides a compulsion to answer a question about who was driving. This does not in itself incriminate, as the offence has still to be proven. The reasons are set out in the judgement - "as Lord Bingham expressed it in the Privy Council in the case of Brown v. Stott (see paragraph 31 above), that ?All who own or drive motor cars know that by doing so they subject themselves to a regulatory regime. This regime is imposed not because owning or driving cars is a privilege or indulgence granted by the State but because the possession and use of cars (like, for example, shotguns ...) are recognised to have the potential to cause grave injury?. Those who choose to keep and drive motor cars can be taken to have accepted certain responsibilities and obligations as part of the regulatory regime relating to motor vehicles, and in the legal framework of the United Kingdom, these responsibilities include the obligation, in the event of suspected commission of road traffic offences, to inform the authorities of the identity of the driver on that occasion."
An extract from para 31 of the Privy Council decision: "Among other ways in which democratic societies have sought to address it is by subjecting the use of motor vehicles to a regime of regulation and making provision for enforcement by identifying, prosecuting and punishing offending drivers. Materials ... incomplete though they are, reveal different responses to the problem of enforcement. Under some legal systems (Spain, Belgium and France are examples) the registered owner is presumed to be the driver guilty of minor traffic infractions unless he shows that some other person was driving at the relevant time or establishes some other ground of exoneration. There being a clear public interest in enforcement of road traffic legislation the crucial question in this case is whether section 172 represents a disproportionate response, or one that undermines a defendant's right to a fair trial, if an admission of being the driver is relied on at trial. I do not for my part consider that section 172, properly applied, does represent a disproportionate response to this serious social problem, ...."
|
My take is that you have the right to remain silent - in which case as the owner you take the penalty.
You also have the right NOT to drive.
You are not compelled to say who was driving, just guilty of an offence (not notifying rather than speeding) if you do not.
Still surprised that the idiots took it as far as they did!
|
|
Well said Ravenger, agree 100%
|
Havi9ng read the gobbledegook i much prefer the line taken by the supporting (dissenting) judge
"To my mind, the path chosen by the Court in the present judgment follows the individualist, sacrosanct approach which views human rights as abstract rights which are set in stone. According to this school of thought, human rights are not intended to enable the individual to live in society, but to place society at the service of the individual."
Full text at http:// cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&hig
hlight=&sessionid=1094791&skin=hudoc-en
(space added after http://)
|
Ravenger's pickpocket analogy doesn't work. No-one in this case is disputing the identification of the speeding vehicle, merely refusing to confirm or contradict the reasonable deduction that the driver named on its registration and insurance documents was in control of it at the time of the offence. And because it is a reasonable deduction, it's not unfair to expect that driver to take the consequences or to show that there's grounds for reasonable doubt.
The hypothetical pickpocket, in contrast, has only to say, "It wasn't me," and it's then up to the police to provide some other evidence, such as fingerprints. The motoring analogy to that would be disputing the identification of the vehicle - which no-one has sought to do - not of the driver.
|
Absolutely WillDeBeest.
The pickpocket analogy suggests that anyone is liable to be arrested on suspicion. The key difference is the link between the vehicle ID and the known owner.
I'm no fan of speed cameras by the way, I think they are law enforcement on the cheap which has led to a reduction in proper policing of the roads. But I know a load of baloney when I see it.
|
I think this decision is poor for civil liberties and perverse in that you have the right to remain silent for most offences, but not motoring related ones
For 26 years of my life i have pursued miscreants and you'd think that anything that made that easier would please me....which to a certain extent it does.......however, in my mind there is a bigger picture and that is the ever encroaching loss of civil liberties
The state should be proving that you've done something wrong, in court before a Magistrate or Judge and Jury......not having some little dipstick on the minimum wage posting you a ticket in the post....and a system of the state asking YOU for the evidence that they don't already know.
How would you like it if a cctv operator saw a shadowy figure commit say a minor litter infringement and walk into the building that you live in...and then a letter arrives stating YOU as the designated person are obliged to tell who did it and if you don't you cop it anyway....so YOU have to work out which of your family did it and YOU do the investigating
not right......that is the states job, not the individual.....whatever happened to the 'right to silence' ?
if there were cops on the streets instead of cameras it wouldn't be an issue would it
|
I think possibly the consequences of ruling in his favour outweigh the consequences of not in this case. They said on the BBC that had they ruled in his favour, the fine and points would automatically have to go to the registered keeper, and that there was the potential for much higher fines. I'd rather have it the way it is than have to take the rap for someone else driving my car!
Oh and I noticed him doing 47 in his old car through a 30 zone too.
|
Ok the analogy isn't 100% accurate, because we don't all go around wearing ID numbers on our jackets, or tattooed into our foreheads. (Though I imagine the government would quite like to implement that ;-) )
The idea was to show how ludicrous it would be if other crimes were treated the same way.
With cloned number plates, incorrect APNR and out of date DVLA databases it's entirely possible that the evidence is faulty, but that's a different issue from what we're discussing here (but still a valid one - witness the pregnant lady whose car was confiscated recently because the database said she wasn't insured, when in fact she was).
It's the way the authorities put the burden of proof onto the driver, and threaten with higher penalties if you don't name a driver or if you elect to go to court. In fact the whole fixed penalty culture is ruining the police's relationship with the public, because it's an easy way for them to a) make money, and b) reach crimes solved targets, and c) are deliberately made difficult to fight.
|
"if there were cops on the streets instead of cameras it wouldn't be an issue would it"
Agree entirely. Funnily enough, not 100 yards from my house right now, there is a policeman with a laser gun checking cars through the village. Because it is night-time, his colleagues are stopping the offending vehicles rather than photographing them. Harsh but fair, IMO, as you get a proper caution at the time of the offence, which includes the phrase "you don't have to say anything..."
That is the problem with remote cameras.
|
|
Probably after a "breathie" as well thios time of night. Another thing that cameras can't do.
|
|
|
|
