Has anyone seen the above news. Scotland's senior judge has ruled that police powers to force motorists to disclose who was driving at the time of a suspected offence breach the European Convention of Human Rights.

If this ruling is sustained by the Appeal Courts, then the use of roadside speed cameras will not result in any convictions. They only identify the vehicle not the driver. This new ruling maintains your right to silence. You do not need to incriminate yourself by admitting that you were the driver.

However I cannot see it being upheld, which is a pity.

 

This is very interesting, do you have any more info.

If it is in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights then that has overiding powers of any national government in the European union.

please tell us more

 

NOW you tell me!!

 

This news appeared today on the front page of the Aberdeen Press and Journal. It ia also on page 11 of todays Daily Telegraph.

To quote the Telegraph: "The 3 appeal judges ruled that a widely used section of the Road Traffic Act - Section 172 - breaches the European Convention on Human Rights.

They held that compelling a motorist under threat of prosecution to make an incriminating reply was incompatible with a suspect's right to silence under the European Convention.

A senior Government law officer has given a warning that the ruling could have "momentous effects" on the prosecution in Scotland of road traffic offences.

A spokesman for the RAC said "The repercussions are potentially enormous. This could endanger speed-camera convictions and put a number of other motoring offences where identity is an issue in jeopardy. There is going to be a gap between now and the appeal being heard. I don't know what that might mean in the interim."

An AA spokesman said "We are studying this situation carefully. It's very complex.""

This could be fun.

 

Buttttttt the thing is there that they cannot prosecute a vehicle (in-animate object) and they need reasonable suspicion to prosecute you.

I.e. "sorry officer but i found i had inadvertantly left my car door open with the keys in the ignition last night but funny thing was the engine was warm this morning !!" ROTFL @ PC

 

I wish!

Call me simple , but surely if you don't have to disclose who you are, and thus admit liability. The police will simply pass the penalty (fine & points) on to the register keeper of the vehicle. The keeper being responsible for the car and the keeper would then have to prove it was someone else driving.

Come to think of it - that's what happens with GATSOs, parking fines etc. isn't it?

I must be missing the point.

Also, that reminds me. Why can't police/councils charge the last registered keeper for disposal of dumped cars? I've read that the price of scrap has gone through the floor and I have noticed an increase in abandoned old wrecks. Councils are apparently being forced to buy new tow trucks and dispose of these vehicles themselves.

Whats that all about then?

 

Lee is correct. In the UK, the registered keeper is responsible for the vehicle, and is liable for any offences commited in that vehicle, unless they can show that they weren't driving, or someone else owns up to driving.

So I think that this, while interesting and probably giving a few people in Transport a bit of a shock, is a red herring.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Scottish laws only apply in Scotland anyway....? I thought they had a totally seperate judicial system to England?
Mike R

 

Scottish law is different.
The UK England + the other bits are found guilty of breaching the European court of human rights more than any other country!


Has not stopped our Government before and won't in the future!

 

correct me if i'm wrong but arent you innocent until proven guilty in this country.

Based on that the law on gatso's re owner/driver must be in breach of natural justice.

maybe i am being very nieve

 

Precisely, John. This is what the Scottish appeal court judges ruled.

The Road Traffic Act applies equally throughout the UK, so this ruling is worrying the authorities in England.

To be convicted you have to be identified, and you cannot be forced to incriminate yourself.

 

This was reported in today's Scottish Daily Mail:

Motorists caught by speed cameras will continue to be prosecuted despite a landmark court ruling, police warned yesterday.
The move follows a case last week in which appeal judges agreed Section 172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act breached European human rights law.
The Act makes it an offence for motorists not to tell police who was driving at the time of an alleged offence, but the judges found it contravened the right to silence and the defence of self-incrimination set down by the European rules.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) yesterday issued a statement, saying that drivers should be aware that Section 172 remains in force and refusal or failure to comply with the law was a criminal offence. The Association added that speed cameras would continue to be used. Martin Papworth, assistant chief constable of Strathclyde Police and secretary to the ACPOS Road Policing Standing Committee, said: "Refusal or failure to comply remains a criminal offence. The extent to which the procurator fiscal can lead evidence of an incriminating reply at a trial has been curtailed meantime in some cases, and it may be necessary to submit additional evidence in these cases. We will continue to be guided by the Crown Office."

ends.

 

so the police are going to break the law in order to prosecute you under another law.
Surely thats against the law

Bet the chief constable is from the west midlands(we never stitch anyone up, honest) serious crime squad on secondment

[This message has been edited by johnfelstead (edited 12-02-2000).]

 

There is also the situation in that the part of the European law that is being used in Scotland doesnt come into effect in the UK until October according to one of the papers I was reading online.