Safe Speed Forums

Many of you will know that a 'Right to Silence' case is going to the ECHR at Strasborg. The case (which has been running for 5 years) is to be heard in the Grand Chamber before 17 judges at the end of September. The ruling will be given sometime later (maybe a couple of months later).

I've haven't spoken to anyone who seriously expects Government Uk to win.

This would mean the end of 'S172' requests to owners to identify the driver at the time of an alleged offence.

It also means that failing to reply to a new NIP NOW would result in a prosecution under a law that would disappear before the case got to court.

I'm wondering about trying to inform the public about this, but I am pretty unsure about the moral and legal aspects of doing so. Any advice?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

You don't know for certain that UK will win. The new Road Traffic Act will bound to have some wording in it to get around the whatever the EU thingummy says. They will also be an appeal if the UK loses I would have thought. I'd imagine the right to silence will be dropped where the prosecution is for the 'greater good'. If it is stated you have a right to silence then basically the roads are going to be far worse as you'd only be able to prosecute those caught by traffic police and only if they could prove your identity - cue ID cards imposed to get round the issue and further tracking and monitoring. I think whichever way it goes is a double edged sword. Keeping the right to silence does allow people to get away with all sorts. They can be as guilty as hell but not have to answer questions honestly as they just claim a right to keep stum.

Remind the public about the case and the consequences for either outcome would seems sensible but I don't think you can recommend any course of action as the outcome isn't certain.

You could call for new legislation to ensure that dangerous drivers do not escape a just punishment, and that those guilty of a minor infraction are not punished to the same degree?
Justice has to be SEEN to be done, not use a sledge hammer to knock in a pin.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

TBH, I'm expecting nothing less than a fudgement

I think the court could address the 'greater good' as follows:

Sec 172

Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence [that has resulted in an accident or injury] to which this section applies—

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and...

Speeding is a victimless crime. I don't see the greater good angle?

I think this is the correct angle. I think the case will be won. Fudgements will be reserved for thier "interpritation of the ruling"

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

does UK law allow them to adopt the Australian system? There the registered keeper is guilty unless they point the finger at someone else (yeah, great system ).

The best we can hope for is that camera convictions will be decriminalised (as with parking).

But that might encourage them to put up even more cameras, and lower thresholds, with the inevitable adverse road safety effects.

If you saw a camera, and thought the only downside was a £60 fine (plus higher insurance premiums for 5 years) you would still slam the anchors on, then worry about what the limit was.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Solution would be a scale of fines (I don't like the thought of a single fine) payable by the driver. The fine would probably still be enough to deter offenders. No points on licence though unless there is a police officer.

Would be similar to bus-lane offences, I guess.

I doubt it would have an affect on insurance if no penalty points.

The easy way to cure the abuse of sending NIPs out in the post is to change the legislation to say that they must be delivered in person by a Police Officer in uniform.

Seeing as 80% of exceeding 30mph is less than 40mph, they'd be likely to go and personally NIP those doing 50 or 60 +

A bit of sanity might come back into play then, eh?

_________________
We have a complaisant but venal judiciary and police force - all too eager to pervert the Law to satisfy their own aims

I think I would have to question your use of the term "easy", I'd describe that as possible in theory but completely impractical!

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

Possibly we could see the start of signed for delivery of NIPS - but then again - get pinged and for next 14 or so days refuse to answer door to postman - or courier. Makes me wonder - what if you get pinged, then seal up letterbox (bit drastic i know, but possible ) for enough time for NIP to time out.Sources tell me that undelivered mail gets disposed off now.
On lines of PC delivering mail - don't give them ideas - another excuse to add more staff to the SCP gravyboat - delivery persons.

There'd be an absolute outsry if they did that.

Remember one of the 'virtues' of the SCP's is that they free up police time to do other things!!

AH- but if the SCP decided that their blokes were freeing up police time ???Something else to spend some more of the "profits " on .

Maybe, but the spiralling costs and size of the camear industry would make people wake up.

Does anyone else get the impression that this government have blown it? Generally I mean? they've spent and spent and spent and it's all about to explode in a very big way.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

CE - I'm sitting back, waiting for the next election and praying. But then some poor sod has to pick up the pieces and who pays ---Yep ,in one - we do .

There's always a price to pay after a Labour Government - not being political, but i am almost 60

Seen them all.( Best quote was "Tomorrow - greatest Labour saving device out")

Even with a police officer asking the question of who was driving, you would be under no obligation to tell them as, having cautioned you, you are protected from being compelled to incriminate yourself. The only way for them to make it stick would be in the manner they must with all other criminal cases; if they don't actually catch the perpetrator at it, they must figure out who s/he is and prove that beyond reasonable doubt using evidence!

[quote="RobinX]prove that beyond reasonable doubt using evidence![/quote]


Exactly - stop them - ask for id etc.but then that's against all the principles of the automated cash cow principles

The problem with this case is that even if it is won all the European Court will do is issue a declaration of incompatability. They cannot strike down the UK law and the chances are the Government will reword the legislation so that speed cameras are exempt.