HunterB

From today's "Scotland on Sunday":

Hundreds of drivers accused of motoring offences could walk free because a crucial test case is taking nine months to get to court.
Scotland's legal system was thrown into chaos in February when the appeal courts ruled police were wrong to force a woman suspected of drink-driving to admit she had been behind the wheel.
The Crown Office immediately announced it would appeal the decision, but Scotland on Sunday can reveal the case will not be heard until November 6.
A backlog is now building up as hundreds of cases involving motorists are adjourned until the appeal is heard. As a result, some drivers will wait up to two years between their alleged offences and trials.
Legal experts say many cases will collapse because too much time will have passed for witnesses' evidence to be relied upon.
It had been expected the appeal would be heard by the judicial committee of the Privy Council next month. The Crown Office has been accused of dragging its feet because it fears it will lose the appeal.
If that happens, the future use of speed cameras will be thrown into doubt and the prosecution of other motoring offences made more difficult.
The original case centered on Margaret Brown, 30, of Dunfermline, who was arrested in June last year after shop staff alleged she had stolen a bottle of gin. Police smelled alcohol on her Brown's breath and used their powers under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act to get her to admit that she had driven to the shop.
But when Brown went on trial, her legal team successfully argued that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guaranteed the right against self-incrimination.
John Scott, a criminal lawyer and chairman of the Scottish Human Rights Centre, revealed a backlog of cases was building up all over Scotland. He said: "It is causing all sorts of difficulties and frustrating sheriffs. Some cases had already been adjourned to dates before November. All the people involved will have to come back to court only for the case to be adjourned until after November."
A spokesman for the Crown Office confirmed the appeal was scheduled for November but denied dragging its feet.
He said the Crown Office lodged the petition to appeal on March 17 and filed a statement of facts and issues by April 17.
The spokesman said two and a half months between the appeal court ruling and submitting all its legal papers was a "reasonable timescale". He said they had no information on the number of cases adjourned in court.

Ends.

Mick

iTrader: (1)

Yet another case of the EU completely proving the point about 'the Law is an ***'. At least with the original UK Law we sort of knew where we stood. - This sort of thing is just plain ludicrous. Whatever happened to 'Peace, Justice and the American Way'- Ooops Wrong country!

Mick(y)

pat

Mick,

Guess this all boils down to the fact that the Police have had powers which they shouldn't have had and now are about to lose them..... and not a moment too soon! The burden of proof should be on the prosecution, and that shouldn't include "beating" a confession out of the defendant [which section 172 is essentially doing; it is obtaining evidence by coersion]....

It's funny how they don't have these problems in other EC member states, where they have taken the responsibility of this burden of proof and a citizen's rights bit more seriously.... get caught by a Gatso in Germany, for example, and you can't really hide behind Article 6 or pretend that you weren't driving since the photo is taken from the front, and you're quite clearly visible in the driver's seat!

Compare this to Scotland where they take a photo, then try to compell the registered keeper to declare who was driving... what if the registered keeper *GENUINELY* can't remeber? Oh, that's just too bad, the registered keeper will just have to take the points and fine, even if they weren't anywhere near the car at the time! *WHERE* is the justice in that????

I'de say Article 6 is far from ludicrous but actually quite sensible... but in the UK, more than in most othe EC member states, people seem to have this notion that the EU is an interfering bunch of suits, immediately coming to the conclusion that because they're trying to change an accepted way of doing things in the UK they're meddling in issues they have no right to be, but never does it seem to occur to people that the accepted way might actually be wrong?

Cheers,

Pat.