Mr Colin Cramphorn
Chief Constable
West Yorkshire Police Headquarters
PO Box 9
Wakefield
WF1 3QP
Dear Mr Cramphorn
It has come to my attention that your website
http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/index.asp that gives information into your area’s safety camera partnership, is littered with un-truths in its’ FAQ page and, as a consequence, is no doubt leading to many members of the public taking an inappropriate course of action in relation to alleged speeding offences. I would be grateful if you or one of your members of staff could confirm why this should be the case.
Question 9 on your FAQ page states :
Q. What happens if I don't sign and return the Notice?
A. The law says you MUST sign and return the Notice. If you don't, you'd be committing an additional, and more serious, offence on top of the alleged speeding offence.
Question 10 on FAQ page states :
Q. If I sign the form aren't I automatically incriminating myself, in breach of human rights legislation?
A. This has been tested in the highest courts in the land and the answer is NO—signing the form is not a self-criminalising act. Failure to sign IS, however. The incorporation of the Human Rights Act into British law does not affect the admissibility of safety camera evidence.
The answer to question nine and the sentence highlighted in section ten are both utterly untrue. Where is the authority in law for these assertions? Question 10 is also incorrect in the matter of self incrimination, which I have detailed further on in the letter.
I have taken the below legislation from section 172 of the Road Traffic Act (RTA).
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Uk ... htm#mdiv21 172. — (1) This section applies—
(a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except— (i) an offence under Part V, or (ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 120,and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,
(b) to any offence under sections 25, 26 or 27 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988,
(c) to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads, except an offence under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the [1989 c. 22.] Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989, and
(d) to manslaughter, or in Scotland culpable homicide, by the driver of a motor vehicle.
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence 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
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
(3) Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.
(ctnd)
I would assume that the authority for the answer to question nine and the sentence highlighted in question 10 is subsection 2 of section 172? If this is indeed the case then can you please point out where the legal obligation to sign a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) is?
Until such times as the RTA is amended to incorporate a requirement to sign an NIP, one can only infer that your website is either deliberately misleading the public or the author has no grasp of legal matters. In any case your website needs to be updated so as to avoid any confusion to the members of the public who no doubt refer to it for advice on how to proceed with an alleged offence.
Question 12 on your FAQ page states :
Q. What if I wasn't driving?
A. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, it is your responsibility to provide the full name and address of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. Failure to do so will result in your being charged with an offence and a court summons being issued. In the event of a limited company being the registered keeper of the vehicle, the company secretary (or whoever acts in that capacity) will be summonsed.
Unfortunately, this is a pretty disingenuous answer.
As you are no doubt aware, the registered keeper has a duty to provide information as to the driver’s details at the time of an alleged offence. Should he fail to do this then he faces a subsection 2(a) charge of failing to provide. If the registered keeper is unable to identify the driver at the time of an alleged offence then, and as long as he demonstrates “reasonable diligence” (as per subsection 4 of the RTA) in trying to ascertain the driver’s identity, he will not be prosecuted under subsection 2(a). This is a very important point and again your website (in the interests of clarity of information), I would suggest, requires additional information to show this point.
On the issue of incrimination, to which your page refers :
Question 10 on your FAQ page states :
Q. If I sign the form aren't I automatically incriminating myself, in breach of human rights legislation?
A. This has been tested in the highest courts in the land and the answer is NO-signing the form is not a self-criminalising act. Failure to sign IS, however. The incorporation of the Human Rights Act into British law does not affect the admissibility of safety camera evidence.
In the Privy Council judgement referred to above (Stott v Brown), Lord Bingham quotes the High Court of Justiciary (without disagreement) as follows:
"To assess whether a person has incriminated himself or herself, the essential consideration is the use to which evidence obtained under compulsion will be put. The concept is not confined to admissions of wrongdoing or to remarks which are directly incriminating. As the respondent’s reply would contribute to the proof that she had driven her car on the occasion in question, and thus provide one of the essential links in the chain of testimony against her, it would be self-incriminating for the purposes of article 6(1) of the Convention (p. 390)."
And Lord Hope of Craighead said:
"It seems to me that, bearing in mind the difficulties that may arise in tracing the driver of a vehicle after the event, this limited incursion into the right of silence and the right of the driver who is alleged to have committed an offence not to incriminate himself is proportionate."
The inference of the above statements is quite clear, in that providing the information is self-incriminating, albeit not in breach of the right to a fair trial. The answer you give above is wrong and misleading and should be properly qualified or removed.
Question 11 on your FAQ page states :
Q. If I wasn't the driver but I know who was, aren't I incriminating them in breach of their human rights?
A. The incorporation of the Human Rights Act into British law does not affect the admissibility of safety camera evidence. The Law Lords in Privy Council have ruled—'It is the duty of the registered keeper to know who is the driver at any time.'
Where, exactly, is this statement contained in any judicial ruling of the Privy Council? The statement is made as a direct quotation so I assume you can substantiate it. If, as I suspect, you refer to the judgement in Procurator Fiscal (Stott) v Brown, the statement you quote does NOT appear in the judgement.
The Privy Council has not made any such statement that I am aware of. If you cannot substantiate it and fail to correct it, you will be wilfully deceiving the public.
Yours sincerely
firefly
Copies :
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
