A friend of mine was recently flashed by a speed camera (40 in a 30 limit). There was a post on this site a while ago regarding not having to tell the authorities who was actually driving the car - some kind of 5th amendment clause - all legal and above board.

Anyone got any ideas??

IF THE SEARCH FACILITY WAS ON THIS SITE I COULD FIND IT MYSELF!!!!

Thanks,

 

I believe that loop-hole has now been closed.

 

You obviously missed the thread about the closing of that loophole by the Law Lords. Article 6 of the ECHR can no longer be used in cases where you are required to provide the details of the driver of a vehicle under section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988.

[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 16 January 2001).]

 

Besides, there was more to this story anyway ...

Basically, the guy was being done for speeding AND dangerous driving. He argued that by admitting to being the driver in the speed camera, he was also incriminating himself on the dangerous driving charge.

The argument never would have held up on a simple speeding charge ...

Just my understanding of the situation.

Andrew.
MY99 5 door + SS backbox.

 

I missed that one as well Stuart, can you post the link or the relevant Info as this is Euro law and you sign up for the lot, not just the parts you like?

I would be interested to see how they think they have side stepped this law?

Mike.

 

This from "The Herald" of 6th December 2000: (It refers to Scots Law, but I'd guess the same principle would be applied in the rest of the UK if it gives the powers that be a "get out" from having to follow EU Law)

Judges strike a necessary blow for the greater good

Not for the first time, common sense has prevailed in matters relating to Scots law and the European Convention on Human Rights. The two frequently have been at loggerheads,
causing chaos in the judicial system (if the headlines are to be believed) when the latter has been used to challenge the former. But the prosaic reality is that the Scottish judicial system has got on with the job of administering justice while appeals prompted by the convention have run their course.

Barring a few exceptions (most notably the appointment of temporary sheriffs that was ripe for reform anyway), the great majority of challenges have failed and even when the
Scottish Executive (which is responsible for the legal system) has lost it has mainly been on the grounds of failing to bring a case to court with sufficient speed.

The appeal lodged by Margaret Brown, who had been prosecuted for drink driving, would have caused upheaval if it had succeeded. She claimed that her rights to a fair trial and
privacy under the terms of the convention had been breached when she was put in the position of having to tell the police who was driving her car. Another driver used the convention to appeal on the same grounds of self-incrimination after he was asked by police to say who was driving his car when it
was photographed speeding. That case also had potentially major implications for road safety. Fortunately, the law lords on the judicial committee of the Privy Council rejected Miss Brown's case, concluding that her rights to privacy and a fair trial had to be balanced against the right to safety of the wider community.

They more than tilted in the right direction, as had the appeal judges who reached a similar conclusion in the case of the
convicted killers who argued that their continued incarceration without medical treatment breached their right to liberty under the convention. In both cases, the decision was reached that the public's right to protection and safety was paramount. No reasonable person could demur. The legal challenges over temporary sheriffs, speeding, children's panels, and the incarceration of "untreatable" dangerous prisoners highlighted the fact that the executive had been slow to react to the implications of the convention. But the convention's rights are expressed in general terms and, slowly but surely, Scots law has, in the great majority of cases, struck a necessary balance for the greater good.

[This message has been edited by HunterB (edited 16 January 2001).]

 

Spikey,

Check out this site, it's been very useful for myself & others I know who've fallen victim to the "Roadside Paparazzi".

"www.brakehorsepower.com/speedtrap/speedtrap_bible.html"

The 14 day rule that surrounds service of an NIP(Notice of Intended Prosecution).
As with all traffic offences in the UK, an NIP is required for a prosecution to proceed.
If you're stopped at the scene however (for example, by a radar-gun-toting traffic policeman), then a verbal NIP is sufficient.
Otherwise it must be in writing. So theoretically, if you've not heard anything after 3 weeks, you got away with it.

But this doesn't work if : you are not the registered owner of the vehicle, driving a rental, vehicles registered address is different to that of yours.
Then they have longer to track you down.

I got off with an alleged 52mph in a 40mph zone, 5 weeks after the incident I received the NIP. That was a couple of years ago.

Hope they screw up for you too..

Neil

 

For a full text of the judgement made by the Privy Council on 5th December 2000 go