S172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act breaches the right to silence
18 November 2004, 06:15 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Never do names esp. Joey, spaz or Mong
Posts: 39,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act breaches the right to silence
Not sure if this has been posted before, so apologies if it has, I've just been sent it by e-mail:
The European Court of Human Rights has accepted eight motorists' applications claiming that S172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act breaches the right to silence implicit in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Given that 90 per cent of applications are rejected at this first stage, this is an important step in a process which, if successful, will make the speed camera system unworkable.
Legal background
The great majority of speed camera photographs do not identify drivers, and so S172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act is used to extract confessions by threatening "similar" (but in practice more severe) penalties for failure to do so. Several million fixed and other penalties, and the Safety Camera Partnerships, rely on these forced confessions, under a 2001 Privy Council judgement (Brown v Stott) citing the public interest in road safety as justification for removing the right to silence not only implicit in Article 6 of the European Convention but explicit in centuries of British common law.
The eight applicants claim that evidence obtained under duress should not be admissible in court, and that convictions based on such admissions should be quashed, as should penalties imposed for failing to identify the driver. The British government has been asked by the European Court of Human Rights to respond to these applications by January 18th and 19th. The applicants will then be able to respond in turn and a court verdict is expected some time in 2006.
Idris Francis, whose case involving a 1938 Alvis Speed 25 received national publicity in 2001/2, comments that:
"Contrary to the verdict of the Privy Council, Article 6 of the Convention does not allow the public interest to be cited as justification for breaches of such fundamental rights to a fair trial. Further, casualty data shows that speed cameras act against the public interest, causing more accidents than they prevent, not least because they have been used as an excuse for cuts in more effective police patrols and other measures.
"The past decade of increasing use of speed cameras has been uniquely dreadful in terms of road fatality trends, while the data presented by the authorities, far from being "robust" as they claim, is seriously flawed, misleading, highly selective, partisan and increasingly dishonest".
The European Court of Human Rights has accepted eight motorists' applications claiming that S172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act breaches the right to silence implicit in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Given that 90 per cent of applications are rejected at this first stage, this is an important step in a process which, if successful, will make the speed camera system unworkable.
Legal background
The great majority of speed camera photographs do not identify drivers, and so S172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act is used to extract confessions by threatening "similar" (but in practice more severe) penalties for failure to do so. Several million fixed and other penalties, and the Safety Camera Partnerships, rely on these forced confessions, under a 2001 Privy Council judgement (Brown v Stott) citing the public interest in road safety as justification for removing the right to silence not only implicit in Article 6 of the European Convention but explicit in centuries of British common law.
The eight applicants claim that evidence obtained under duress should not be admissible in court, and that convictions based on such admissions should be quashed, as should penalties imposed for failing to identify the driver. The British government has been asked by the European Court of Human Rights to respond to these applications by January 18th and 19th. The applicants will then be able to respond in turn and a court verdict is expected some time in 2006.
Idris Francis, whose case involving a 1938 Alvis Speed 25 received national publicity in 2001/2, comments that:
"Contrary to the verdict of the Privy Council, Article 6 of the Convention does not allow the public interest to be cited as justification for breaches of such fundamental rights to a fair trial. Further, casualty data shows that speed cameras act against the public interest, causing more accidents than they prevent, not least because they have been used as an excuse for cuts in more effective police patrols and other measures.
"The past decade of increasing use of speed cameras has been uniquely dreadful in terms of road fatality trends, while the data presented by the authorities, far from being "robust" as they claim, is seriously flawed, misleading, highly selective, partisan and increasingly dishonest".
18 November 2004, 06:40 PM
#3
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the meantime, if you get a NIP, you can always try the 'PACE' witness statement as suggested on pepipoo.com. Basically, you produce a witness statement admitting that you were driving the car at the time of the alleged offence, but state that you haven't been cautioned and, therefore, that evidence is inadmissable should the case go to Court.
I am familiar with the relevant legislation (PACE Codes of Practice 10.1) and it is clear that you should be cautioned.
Apparently, the police haven't prosecuted anyone who has taken this course of action. Yet
I am familiar with the relevant legislation (PACE Codes of Practice 10.1) and it is clear that you should be cautioned.
Apparently, the police haven't prosecuted anyone who has taken this course of action. Yet
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
fatboy_coach
General Technical
15
18 June 2016 03:48 PM
The Joshua Tree
Computer & Technology Related
30
28 September 2015 02:43 PM