Safe Speed Forums

Paul - is this still the case (i.e. you've heard nothing and therefore is still 'more than 30 days' to go)? Is it normal for a verdict to take this long (it's almost 5 months now since the case was heard)..?

ECHR Calender

Pending Cases Fifth one down. O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom

Yes. We're still waiting for (at least) 30 days' notice.

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

It's now advanced to 4th on the list -- at this rate, in theory we should be getting a decision about July time.

In another case when a ppp member tried to get another case sent to europe the high court judge was all of a stutter every time he mentioned O’Halloran and Francis.

Some people there read that the bench they knew the UK would loose this case..

_________________
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

4th on the list now!

_________________
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

I've heard a very unofficial rumour for June. I got it from a journalist with no means to check his source.

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

So if they win, does it mean section 172 can no longer be used?

does it mean speed cameras for their present use of stealing money from your pocket and giving you points is out the window?

also I assume a police caution can only be given to you face to face by a police officer, they cant just print it on the top of the NIP?

_________________
Anti Road Charging Forum

http://www.traveltax.org.uk/

If they were to accompany the NIP with a caution then they couldn't compel you to complete it.

If the government lose the case, my understanding is that they'd have two options:

1) Make speed camera penalties into a civil offence of just a fine and no penalty points
2) Have a team of staff identify the driver by comparing the camera photo with records of "known offenders", and send the NIP directly to the identified driver

Is there a 3rd option they could go with?

I don't think your 2) is viable. 'It looks like Fred' just isn't legal evidence of anything.

3) Blame the ECHR for the loss of speed cameras (when the truth is that they need an escape route from the failed policy anyway).

4) Carry on with an 'illegal' S172 process. The ECHR has no powers to prevent such a thing, but the 'certificate of non-compliance' becomes a legal document and each magistrate could be asked to consider its merit in every case.

5) Send Police officers to interview every RK in the hope of getting sufficient evidence?

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

Option 1 would to be like every other member of the EU. De-criminalise speeding tickets (where the person was not stopped at the time? ) fine the car owner. the criminal offence comes in for non payment of fines.

The fact that every other member of the EU opperates a diferent system sugests that the UK is wrong and the case will not go the UK's way

_________________
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

If a vehicle had been used in the commission of a murder or armed robbery then the police, through standard detective work, would normally be able to establish who had been driving it at the time. When dealing with normal members of the public this would be even easier.

The issue is not that it is not feasible, but that it would be counter-productive in terms of resources. The big "benefit" of cameras was supposed to be that they could dole out penalties automatically. Once this no longer becomes possible, the advantages of stopping people at the time of the alleged offence become much more convincing.

_________________
"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

I guess it's 'not feasible' due to the manpower requirements.

But other than that, I couldn't agree more - a good point well made.

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

Knowing this government, if they went with option 1 then the penalty would be tied into a means-tested system related to your income, where if you were on benefits you'd pay nothing, and if you were a City executive your speeding fine would amount to thousands of pounds.

I believe some Scandinavian countries operate this system.

If we ignore the means of detection and whether breaking a speed limit is worthy of punishment in all circumstances, then means tested fines are not necessarily a bad thing. A fine really needs to a a financial disincentive to offending, and if it is a fixed amount then it will disincentivise less for those with more disposable funds.

So how does it "disincentivise" unemployed scrotes with throwaway cars then?

Fines related to income are totally unacceptable. Should rich people go to jail for longer than the poor for more serious offences?

The penalty should be related to the offence not the offender.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

If the fine is the only punishment then the rich will treat something like £60 for speeding (if they are caught) as just another tax that they (can easily) pay for the privilege of driving fast than everybody else. Mr Scrote on £60 a week benefit sees this quite differently, even if it is paid off at the rate of a packet of fags a week equivalent

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

Quite.

Remember the issue we are discussing here is if speeding is decriminalised. As gopher mentioned, why should the rich get the luxury of an easily affordable fine, that is maybe 0.01% of their monthly disposable income, whereas 'the poor' are looking at 10+%?

'You cannot specify an appropriate fine in pounds'

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Because their offence is the same as that of a less well off person. Life is unfair. Not everyone is equal financially but, supposedly, in the eyes of the law everyone is treated the same. Is justice to be meted out dependent on your means?

How would you like this to work? On income, assets, parent's job, expected liftime earnings ...?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.