THOUSANDS of motorists caught in speed traps are set to escape punishment after a Birmingham judge yesterday ruled police evidence infringed their human rights. Under a landmark ruling, the paperwork sent to motorists caught on speed cameras and police surveillance cameras was deemed to contravene European legislation because defendants effectively incriminated themselves. Last night, legal experts warned the ruling, the first in an English court, could also open the floodgates for thousands of appeals from motorists who have already been convicted of driving offences. They also warned thousands of motorists waiting to be dealt with for offences caught on camera would now be able to use the ruling as a valid defence. Judge Peter Crawford, sitting at Birmingham Crown Court, dismissed the case of two Birmingham men who had been charged with dangerous driving. Amesh Chauhan, aged 22, of Swanshurst Lane, Moseley, and Dean Hollingsworth, aged 23, of Gracemere Crescent, Hall Green, were accused of being part of a gang filmed by police racing cars around the Barford Street area of the city centre. West Midlands Police sent standard letters to the registered keepers of the cars caught on film, asking for the name and address of the person who was driving the vehicle. The letters also gave notice to the owner that the police were considering a prosecution for dangerous driving. But Article Six of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrines the right of anybody suspected of a crime to remain silent so as not to incriminate themselves. Judge Crawford decided that to ask for information about the driver of the car while at the same time informing the recipient of the letter they faced prosecution was a clear breach of Article Six. The judge said: "The accused has been told by police he is a suspect and there is no reason why he should not take them on their word for that. "In my judgment, the notice to prosecute which accompanied the application for the name and address of the driver is directed against the recipient of the notice as the driver and tells him that. "In which case that entitles him to the protection of Article Six of the Convention as the letter is more than just an administrative procedure as has been suggested." After the case, Gulam Sohail, a partner at solicitors Challinors Lyon Clark in Birmingham, said the potential repercussions of the judge's ruling were huge. He said: "There has been a similar case like this in Scotland but this is the first time that a judge in England has made a ruling of this kind. "There are several implications, the main one being that the police may now have to rethink the whole way in which they prosecute road traffic offences. "If the current procedure used by the police to determine who was driving a car is now deemed inappropriate then it is going to be very difficult in the future to prove who was driving a car." Supt David Shaw, of West Midlands Police, said: "What we need to do is look in fine detail at what the judge has said and then we will sit down with the CPS and see if we have to change our procedures. "However, we will continue to carry out operations aimed at curbing behaviour that puts members of the public in danger." A Home Office spokesman, said: "We are not aware of this particular judgment and we would obviously need to look at it carefully. "But generally speaking legislation as it stands does provide for the admissibility of such evidence. "To be specific, Section 11 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988." Source : Alun Thorne, Birmingham Post

You're point being?

Looks like two @rseholes got away with reckless driving because of some weasel words and specious reasoning!

Isn't this another example of what everyone keeps moaning about, the law leaning in favour of the law breaker?

BarryK,

I can see your point about the a*****les doing this sort of thing getting away with it but I think that the change in the emphasis over the last 5 years towards road offences has been towards 'guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent'. To be more exact in cases where a car is caught on camera, guilty unless you incriminate someone else.

I believe the emphasis should be on the police force and CPS to prove a person has commited a crime not rely on technology to collect circumstantial (spelling ?) evidence
and then expect you to incriminate yourself.
If you get pulled over by an officer using a hand held vascar or in a patrol car then its fair cop because most traffic control officers use a bit of common sence when it comes to judging the difference between a driver that driving a bit over the top but safetly so (i.e distance between cars etc),and the idiots mentioned previously.
Cameras Don't.

It seems that in urban/suburban Britain the only thing you can do these days to avoid being watched by a camera is stay in.


Ian.

BarryK,

I suspect that Mark's point is that everyday thousands of decent people are labelled as criminals and dragged through the British "justice" system for exceeding poorly-considered speed limits. Forget the calls for a reconsideration of traffic laws. Let's get back to the days when some common sense was shown in the policing of Britain's roads. I suspect that the number of people who have been charged with a speeding offence is in the millions, not thousands. Can this possibly be right? Why do politicians wonder why most people have no respect for them or the Police any more? Stupidity? Arrogance?

With regard to this Birmingham case, I would like to know why the accused were allowed to continue to "race cars around the city centre" while the Police stood by making home movies? The Police's only apparent action being to drop a letter in the post a week later? Is this really West Mids Police's best effort to "curb behaviour that puts members of the public in danger"? It seems to me that the local force need a good shake-up if they are content to allow such behaviour whilst taking no action. It makes me ask whether these two were really racing or have the Police become too bloody lazy/PC to do anything other than stand at the side of the road pointing their toys at motorists?

Conclusion: I think that Mark is hoping that this kind of decision will be an end to the current rotten policing system that is used on our roads today. I know that it is what I am hoping for and why I cheer a decision like this. I don't advocate turning the streets into a racetrack but I dream of days when the country will not be limited to the standards of the lowest common denominator. Accuse me of what you like, but this is my opinion and I am entitled to it (for the moment).

Tony,

Spot on!!!

mb

?????? Does this mean that my wife who was "gatso'd" on the M5 around the Dudley area a week or so ago in a 40!!!!! limit will be able to get off scot free??? (in a strange way I want to see the brown envelope cos she said she was only doing 65 ???????)
If so great news cos I think she was probably doing more like 80!
Lets wait and see.
Jim http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/confused.gif

I heard about the Scottish case a while ago and I agree that it is good news that a British court has recognised it (again for the sake of people who get done for minor speeding offences, NOT the sort of people who endanger others lives). Whilst on the subject of speed traps etc., I was on the way home this afternoon from the RSOC trackday at Castle Coombe and stumbled upon two coppers...I mean officers of the law...with a tripod mounted gun-not a mini gatso.

Fortunately I had been forewarned by other road users as my Snooper SD815 did not pick anything up. I thought it picked up both radar and laser, so what was this that they were using ????

Any ideas (and possible radar detector upgrade suggestions) would be gratefully accepted.

David

As you can imagine we've been talking about this quite a lot at work in the last couple of days.

The only point i'm going to make is that the ECHR directive that the judge used isn't actually on the British statute books yet, so as far as I know (any lawyers out there correct me if I'm wrong) his decision relied on a law which 'technically' doesn't exist in Britain yet.

[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 16-07-2000).]

I always try to drive in a responsible manner on the road, i do break the law every time i jump in a car by speeding, everybody does.

I dont drive around in 30 limits at 40MPH all the time but i also dont place half my attention on the speedo, i use that time to observe what is going on around me.

It terryfies me thinking we are geting to a point where we have zombies driving cars with 1 eye on the speedo all the time.

I drive well in excess of the 60 limit in national speed limit areas if it is safe to do so, i also drive at 85MPH on the motorway everywhere if conditions allow.

In road works on the motorway i always keep to the 50 limits as i see that as a genuine case of trying to protect the workers at the road side. I seem to be quite rare in doing that unless speed camera's are present.

If we want to use speed cameras in a way that they were intended acording to the act of parliament that allowed them the following should be applied.

1) they are ONLY sited where there is a history of speed related acidents.
2) the area is signed in advance to warn you that you are entering an accident black spot and that cameras are sited to reduce these accidents.
3)the money generated from these cameras is used to improve the roads specifically in danger areas.

The ruling mentioned above is a step in the right direction, if this becomes clear cut then all speed cameras will disapear as they will not be able to be funded and will be unenforcable, personally i think that is a good thing for road safety, lets get back to procecuting dangerous driving, not money generating for the government.

I have only ever recieved 1 notice of intended procecution from a Gatso that was located on a quiet dual carriageway in a 40 limit that used to be 60. There was no genuine reason for it to be there. Out of shear bloody mindedness i contested it, they droped the charges, i recon they just couldnt be bothered spending the time and money to fight me in court, why should they when they are only trying to make money, 99% of people pay up so why bother with the 1% who dont want too.

In case you think i am being iresponsible in my speeding, i am 34 years old, have held a clean license for over 10 years, never been stoped for any driving offence apart from speeding when i was in my youth and i have never had an RTA except when someone went through a red light and hit me from the side. Maybe i am lucky, personally i dont beleive in luck, its all about being alert and the culture that is taking hold now on the road is sending people to sleep, that scares me.

stu, it is law in part of britain, scotland!

britain is england, wales and scotland mate. http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/wink.gif

The UK is britain and Northern Ireland in case you thought i forgot the irish. http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/wink.gif

My understanding of the law is that European Law is "superior" to UK Law and that where there is a conflict between the two, then UK Law is invalidated. I don't believe that it is necessary for the UK to enact the Euro legislation for it to be applicable in the UK. The Euro provisions should apply from the day that it is enacted by Brussels. I'm sure that this must be the case because you can be certain that the Judge would have done all that he could to avoid coming to the decision that he did. I'm sure that the CPS will appeal for the hell of it (if nothing else) but I'm not sure that they can win this one. Well, not with the administrative procedure argument.

Not trying to make any points Barry.

I was emailed this extract and put it up on the board to gain some reactions.

I agree with your comments but the Police should have reacted immediately rather than just watch!!

Mark

Excellent news, just what the Police and Government need to bring them back down to earth.

If your'e really interested in motorists rights, check out

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by johnfelstead:
<B>stu, it is law in part of britain, scotland!

britain is england, wales and scotland mate. http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/wink.gif

The UK is britain and Northern Ireland in case you thought i forgot the irish. http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/wink.gif[/quote]


What I meant was that Scottish law is not applicable in British courts. If you get caught on a GATSO in Scotland the legislation is alrady active, so you could use it to get the case dismissed however, it doesn't come onto the British statue books until October so I don't see how the judge can have used it.

I would suspect that it is because <I>(as I believe Tony mentioned earlier)</I>, that the European courts are a 'Higher' court which the UK legal system, has to justify it's decisions to ultimately.

Red light cameras I can see the point of, I actually agree with Tony's comments earlier about speed cameras..... Speeding is not 'Real' crime!

0nly 6% <I>(TRL figures)</I> of accidents are attributable directly as speed being the principle cause. That does not warrant blanket speed restrictions to bring the accident figures down, or punitive punisment for anybody caught doing it.......

Speed cameras are predominantly not used now at accident blackspots as a genuine attempt to reduce speed related accidents, they are being used purely for revenue generation. (and usally sited to maximise that).

I hope this is the beginning of the end for them. (I've never been gatso'd).

There is not a single member of this board (who drives) who does not do it, some get away if they get caught because of their 'job' the majority are punished financially for their misdemeanour, sometimes to extremes!

Some people who would have been found guilty of other crimes will escape, but better that a couple of true crimanals get away than to punish thousands on a daily basis with a blanket approach which punishes all, for something that is not 'real' crime?

Mike.

[This message has been edited by Mike Tuckwood (edited 16-07-2000).]

Mark, sorry I should've said "the" point being, I knew you weren't advocating general law evasion.

I agree with everything said on this thread, I am a like minded individual after all that's why I read this stuff!

It must be hell being a police officer these days as they know as well as most of us do, they are not being allowed to do what we pay them for. Hark back to the original reasons why the police force was set up. The same reasons exist today.

I agree too that money making schems where speed limits are seen as a good earner are irritating. There have been many comments on threads such as this about educating drivers rather than subjugating them and I agree completely.

What I don't accept is the schoolboy "trying to get off" mentality when people won't take responsibility for their own actions, eg 2 nurks racing around Birmingham.

Now, if the police had tried to stop them would a PCA style chase have ensued? Then the police get it in the neck for encouraging them!

If we have laws then they have to be enforceable. If the statute laws are not popular, then either we lobby to change them or we abide by them. We are playing with fire if we say it is OK for some groups to ignore them under certain circumstances.

The main sole monopoly business benefitting from all this pedantic tosh is the legal "profession".

So there! http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/smile.gif

***Message Deleted***

[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 16-07-2000).]

<B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mike Tuckwood:
There is not a single member of this board (who drives) who does not do it, some get away if they get caught because of their 'job'[/quote]

I hope your not suggesting that I or any other police officer would escape prosecution because of our job?



[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 16-07-2000).]

Another wonder of the British legal system http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/frown.gif

Two T****s get off with dangerous driving in a city street when the open roads are being turned into 50 limits with Gatso's everywhere!

More ammunition for the 'Speed, and only speed, Kills' brigade!

I'm sure perfectly decent, responsible, safe drivers will not be able to appeal over their Gatso convictions https://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm/b.gif

Chris

**** labour

goddamnit, keeps getting worse

im going to have a bath now.

Hi there,
What is the actual rulling for Scottish Companies? I mean, if a Scottish Company car gets caught on a gatso for speeding, the Company doesn't have to give the name of the driver? - I have either got it totally wrong or partially correct, so what it? and is that the same if the Scottish company car gets caught on a gatso in England?
Ian

[This message has been edited by Hos (edited 16-07-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Stuart H:
<B>[b] I hope your not suggesting that I or any other police officer would escape prosecution because of our job?

[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 16-07-2000).][/quote]

Stuart.

Not trying to do that at all, <I>(I have been present when it has happened more than once and know through direct contacts that it DOES happen)</I>

I'm sure that if you were caught speeding by one of your colleagues, that you would demand that you were prosecuted regardless. http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/wink.gif

Mike.

I think that everyone has made some very valid points here...espiecally Johns about spending half your life watching the speedo, but also Barrys point about idiots getting away with 'murder'

The problem seems to me that everyone has their own agenda, and own idea of what is right and what is wrong. I never speed in 30 limits, or roadworks, but do on motorways if I feel it is safe. For someone else, that is considered extremely irresponsible. so who is right? me with my 'Im a very good, alert, thoughful, experienced and well trained driver' (ie, complete self belief and arrogance which I bet most of us share) or is it the 'you could kill someone' brigade? We assume Im right, they dont...

this law does in fact make the polices job harder yet again - surely that cant be a good thing?

I would be interested to hear from Stuart on what his, and other Polices <I>opinion</I> of the way Gatsos are used today? They do take the intelligence out of decision making....

am confused! http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/frown.gif

Night

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Stuart H:
<B>I hope your not suggesting that I or any other police officer would escape prosecution because of our job?[/quote]

Stuart,
Mike may not have been, so I will - I'm not suggesting you would do the same, but I was a passenger when a friend got stopped for speeding - ticket was written out. When the officer heard the driver's address was 'Police House', village name, ticket was ripped up.

Hos

If a company is asked who was driving one of their vehicles there is no self incrimination, so no infringement of Article 6 of the ECHR. As I see it this only applies, if they ask you who was driving your car, and you were driving it at the time of the alleged offence. You could tell them that someone else was driving. The police can ask you to incriminate someone else, but not yourself.

Charles,
Thankyou for your reply- I think I have it now http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/smile.gif Say i was driving i got caught and the police asked me who was driving my car. If i said that it was a work collegue and he denied it, they would be in a muddle? I know this is illegal and stupid but I am just trying to understand it. I just throught there was something more in depth about it all as people went on about it 6 months ago?
Ian http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/smile.gif

Somthoing I was sent this morning have a read and see what you think.

THOUSANDS of motorists caught in speed traps are set to escape punishment
after a Birmingham judge yesterday ruled police evidence infringed their
human rights.


Under a landmark ruling, the paperwork sent to motorists caught on speed
cameras and police surveillance cameras was deemed to contravene European
legislation because defendants effectively incriminated themselves.


Last night, legal experts warned the ruling, the first in an English
court, could also open the floodgates for thousands of appeals from
motorists who have already been convicted of driving offences.


They also warned thousands of motorists waiting to be dealt with for
offences caught on camera would now be able to use the ruling as a valid
defence.


Judge Peter Crawford, sitting at Birmingham Crown Court, dismissed the
case of two Birmingham men who had been charged with dangerous driving.


Amesh Chauhan, aged 22, of Swanshurst Lane, Moseley, and Dean
Hollingsworth, aged 23, of Gracemere Crescent, Hall Green, were accused of
being part of a gang filmed by police racing cars around the Barford
Street area of the city centre.
West Midlands Police sent standard letters to the registered keepers of
the cars caught on film, asking for the name and address of the person who
was driving the vehicle.


The letters also gave notice to the owner that the police were considering
a prosecution for dangerous driving.


But Article Six of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrines the
right of anybody suspected of a crime to remain silent so as not to
incriminate themselves.


Judge Crawford decided that to ask for information about the driver of the
car while at the same time informing the recipient of the letter they
faced prosecution was a clear breach of Article Six.


The judge said: "The accused has been told by police he is a suspect and
there is no reason why he should not take them on their word for that.


"In my judgment, the notice to prosecute which accompanied the application
for the name and address of the driver is directed against the recipient
of the notice as the driver and tells him that.


"In which case that entitles him to the protection of Article Six of the
Convention as the letter is more than just an administrative procedure as
has been suggested."


After the case, Gulam Sohail, a partner at solicitors Challinors Lyon
Clark in Birmingham, said the potential repercussions of the judge's
ruling were huge.


He said: "There has been a similar case like this in Scotland but this is
the first time that a judge in England has made a ruling of this kind.


"There are several implications, the main one being that the police may
now have to rethink the whole way in which they prosecute road traffic
offences.


"If the current procedure used by the police to determine who was driving
a car is now deemed inappropriate then it is going to be very difficult in
the future to prove who was driving a car."


Supt David Shaw, of West Midlands Police, said: "What we need to do is
look in fine detail at what the judge has said and then we will sit down
with the CPS and see if we have to change our procedures.


"However, we will continue to carry out operations aimed at curbing
behaviour that puts members of the public in danger."


A Home Office spokesman, said: "We are not aware of this particular
judgment and we would obviously need to look at it carefully.


"But generally speaking legislation as it stands does provide for the
admissibility of such evidence.


"To be specific, Section 11 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988."


Source :

Maybe this is why the new cameras take a picture of your face, so they can actually prove it was you driving?

Isn't this where we started????

Darren, Have you seen Mark's original post????

I dont like cameras, they suck. Because they exist I have to watch my speed.

I look ahead pretty well, good judge of road conditions but can control my car, BUT it doesnt stop me acting like an a**ehole at times. I probably break the speed limit everyday (even if its marginal). Speed cameras, for all their ills, keep me in line.

Nightmare,

I dont like to be rude but telling anyone you NEVER go above 30 miles an hour in 30 mph zone is suspect. I cant believe it. Hey, maybe you went at 31 mph ! woe boy you broke the speed limit. Maybe you ought to rephrase that to something like "never drove inappropriately in a 30 mph zone" or summit.

Stuart,

Whether you've abused your position as a PC or not is irrelevant. As long as you keep enforcing the law it will keep idiots like me in check. Whatsmore, if there are worse idiots then me (I think there are) then you are protecting me by keeping them in check also.

On a last note, anyone that drives through a speed camera DESERVES to be booked. There a sodding signs telling you they are there, there are marking on the roads.

Last time a camera flashed at me I didnt blame the camera, the police, the goverment, the local council, I blamed MYSELF for not paying enough attention. Luckly nothing happened.

A little less hyprocracy and common sense is needed here.

bkar