Safe Speed Forums

Speeding laws face human rights test
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
(Filed: 04/09/2006)

Motorists' rights are being infringed by anti-speeding laws, senior human rights judges will be told at a hearing this month.

The European Court in Strasbourg will examine section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which requires the registered keeper of a vehicle to say who was driving at the time it was caught by a speed camera. If the challenge is successful, it could punch a major hole in laws that raise millions of pounds in fines every year.

The court will be told that a vintage Alvis belonging to Idris Francis, 66, a retired company director from West Meon, Hants, was photographed being driven at 47mph in a 30mph area of Surrey in June 2001.

Francis refused to say who was driving the car and was fined £750 with £250 costs and three penalty points.

The judges will also consider the case of Gerard O'Halloran, 72, from London, who admitted driving a car seen travelling at 69mph on the M11 in Essex where a temporary speed limit was 40mph. He later tried to have his confession excluded but was fined £100 for speeding with £150 costs and six penalty points.

Francis complains that being compelled to provide evidence of the offence he was suspected of having committed infringed his right not to incriminate himself.

O'Halloran complains that he was convicted because of a statement he made under threat of a penalty similar to that for the speeding offence.

Both men claim there has been a breach of the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence under Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.

The two motorists are being represented by the human rights organisation Liberty.

Drivers challenge spy camera law

Two motorists say human rights are being breached - and their case in Strasbourg this week could affect millions

Mark Townsend, legal affairs correspondent
Sunday September 24, 2006
The Observer

The controversy over speed cameras will be reignited this week with a legal challenge that could overturn the government's ability to raise millions of pounds in traffic fines each year.

The European Court in Strasbourg will hear evidence that UK motorists' rights are being undermined by anti-speeding laws. Senior human rights judges will be told that existing laws - which require vehicle owners to disclose who was driving at the time the vehicle was pictured by a speed camera - breach a fundamental tenet of British justice, namely the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

If the challenge, brought by the human rights group Liberty against the British government, is successful then it would seriously impair the usefulness of Britain's 6,000 roadside cameras in catching speeding motorists. Lawyers for Liberty claim that an individual's 'right to silence' is a vital cornerstone of the law.

Last year, 2 million drivers were caught by speed cameras, resulting in fines of around £120m. Campaigners claim many drivers are penalised for momentary lapses of concentration and that the sums generated by speed camera fines are essentially a 'hidden tax' against Britain's 34 million motorists.

Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said: 'This is a high-profile, important case whose outcome may affect millions [of people].'

At the hearing on Wednesday, 17 judges inside the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights will be told that motorists caught speeding by camera have an expectation to be protected by their right to silence.

The case centres on two motorists who objected to their fines. Judges will be told that a vintage Alvis belonging to Idris Francis, 66, was photographed being driven at 47mph in a 30mph area in Surrey in June 2001.

Francis, a retired company director of West Meon, Hampshire, refused to say who was driving and was fined £750 with £250 costs and three penalty points. He complains that being compelled to provide evidence of the offence he was suspected of having committed infringed his right not to incriminate himself.

His 1938 Alvis Speed 25, which was caught on the speed camera, has appeared in the Ruth Rendell Mysteries television series and was driven by Nigel Havers in The Charmer. Whether Francis will drive it to Strasbourg for this week's hearing has yet to be decided.

The judges will also consider the case of Gerard O'Halloran, 72, from London, who admitted driving a car at 69mph on the M11 in Essex where a temporary speed limit restricted vehicles to 40mph. He later tried to have his statement excluded but was fined £100 for speeding with £150 costs and six penalty points. O'Halloran claims that he was convicted because of a statement he made under threat of a penalty similar to that for the speeding offence.

James Welch, legal director for Liberty, said it was essential that the laws were clarified to protect the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Welch added: 'Clearly there is no human right which allows drivers to travel over legal speed limits.

'Rather, the principle we are defending is that no one should be forced to convict himself by his own mouth under threat of criminal sanction. Unless we are willing to overlook 300 years of common law, motorists too must have a fair trial in which they are innocent until proven guilty'.'

Campaigners argue that the UK is one of the most difficult countries in Europe in which to maintain a clean driving licence. Nearly a million motorists are on the brink of a ban because they have racked up penalty points, a recent study found. Experts predict that if the challenge to section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is successful, the police's power to use cameras to catch speeding drivers will be severely curtailed.

This report doesn't really put the case in a good light. In the current climate there will be plenty who will simply accuse Idris and Gerard of trying to get off on a technicality. The idea that an offence has to be proven in law for it to be deemed to have actually happened is something too complicated for most of the masses to uderstand.

.......must have a fair trial in which they are innocent until proven guilty'.'

must have a fair trial in which they are presumed innocent until proven guilty'.'

Idris Francis rang me from outside the court and said: "It seemed to go well.
Our barrister was absolutely brilliant, while the government barrister seemed
to be clutching at straws."<ends>

How long is it likely to take to hear the verdict?

From what I read this morning it could take a couple of months.

raking up another old thread
There are a number of court cases adjourned pending this result to mid January, was that a wild guess or is there a firm date that we are working to?

Once the verdict finally is announced, can whoever loses lodge an appeal against it?