Keeping Silent After Flash!

[BenzComander]

Has anybody got any further information regarding the hearing this week, where human rights people brought a case that we did not have to tell the police who was driving the car when caught on camera??

 

[masqueraid]

Verdict unlikely to be delivered until well into next year

 

[BenzComander]

Forgive me for for my ignorance, but it seems to me that they have a point. We are entitled to silence under current laws to prevent self incrimination, and when you get the dreaded letter through saying your vehicle was photographed, surely it is for the authorities to identify who was driving??

We had a letter from the South Wales police saying we had exceeded the speed of a local village (37 in a 30) We honestly could not remember who was driving the car, so asked for the photo evidence. When it came through it was such a bad photo (from the back of the car ) that we could not hand on heart say who was driving. Told the lady on the help line this, and have not heard anything back, now two years!!

In Germany (when we lived there!) the cameras took the photo from the front, and the picture easily identified the driver. Why do the UK cameras not do this??

 

[BTB 500]

In Germany (when we lived there!) the cameras took the photo from the front, and the picture easily identified the driver. Why do the UK cameras not do this??

Increasingly, they do. The newer Truvelo ones are front-facing .. they use an infra-red flash so as not to dazzle the driver.

 

[Swiss Toni]

This is an arguement over some fairly detailed interpretation of legal definitions - not simply the (US Cop Movie) "Right to remain silent" (US).

It is an arguement that has been presented a number of times before and failed - this is a subtle change on the previous lines.

I have no idea which way the ruling will fall (obviously, if I did I would be a Crown Court Judge ) but...

It presents the question...

As a society, if the law is there to protect society from the actions of the individual (a misquote, but you get the idea?), what do we deem acceptable methods of investigation?

There are murderers walking free because courts felt that the evidence that 100% proved they were guilty (and they were guilty!) was obtained unfairly - whether that be as a result of incompetence or "noble cause corruption". The law says (in simple terms) that the methods by which the evidence is obtained must be fair or else the results will be void.

Do we accept that there must be some responsibility on the part of the owner/driver of a vehicle to declare the driver at a time that an offence is alledged?

Does the nature of this offence matter? (parking, speeding, manslaughter?)

I'd be interested to know what we really think?

Cheers

 

[imadoofus]

But there have been recent discussions with regard to changing the law so that appeals cannot be brought due to improperly gathered evidence.

I don't know the detail, but it was on Radio 4 during the week. The argument seems to be that if evidence is found that you did it, then the fact that the evidence was gathered 'incorreclty' doesn't change the fact that you did it.

Anybody able to fill in the blanks?

PJ

 

[Swiss Toni]

But if the evidence is found "unfairly" then it does not matter that you did it...

 

[Dieselman]

But if the evidence is found "unfairly" then it does not matter that you did it...

True but why?

If the "criminal" was trapped into revealing that they performed a crime then it still stands that they have performed the crime.

I do understand the problem of entrapment, which is really trying to make someone commit a crime but if evidence was subsequently gathered (by reasonable means) about a previous crime where there was no entrapment then surely the evidence should be admisable.

 

[Swiss Toni]

"No comment"

Poor example, but...

Cops installed a recording device in cells to gain evidence of 2 men accused of murdering someone, agreeing how they would lie.

The tapes did indeed record this.

However. When declared to their defence team (as is required), their solicitor points out that the tapes could have recorded the men getting confidential legal advice. The tapes didn't record this, but...

The Courts accepted that the tapes could have recorded it and that this right is core to the mens rights, so the trial was stopped and the men released.


Motorist kills child, evidence of the vehicle found at the scene (paint), enquiries lead to the identification of the vehicle. Husband and wife can't remember who was driving at the time....


I would point out that, when asked questions about an alledged offence (any offence) you don't have to answer any of them, but if the case goes to trial, the court can draw an "appropriate" conclusion from your decision not to answer questions...

 

[Fandango]

...
There are murderers walking free because courts felt that the evidence that 100% proved they were guilty (and they were guilty!) was obtained unfairly - whether that be as a result of incompetence or "noble cause corruption". The law says (in simple terms) that the methods by which the evidence is obtained must be fair or else the results will be void.

Do we accept that there must be some responsibility on the part of the owner/driver of a vehicle to declare the driver at a time that an offence is alledged?

Does the nature of this offence matter? (parking, speeding, manslaughter?)

I'd be interested to know what we really think?

Cheers

The law requires 100% certainty, and I certainly agree with that. Whether it is speeding or manslaughter does not make any difference. Better the guilty walk free than vice versa.
This means that the authorities gathering the evidence have to be extremely thorough and careful.

 

[Fandango]

Poor example, but...

Cops installed a recording device in cells to gain evidence of 2 men accused of murdering someone, agreeing how they would lie.

The tapes did indeed record this.

However. When declared to their defence team (as is required), their solicitor points out that the tapes could have recorded the men getting confidential legal advice. The tapes didn't record this, but...

The Courts accepted that the tapes could have recorded it and that this right is core to the mens rights, so the trial was stopped and the men released.
...

exactly my point about evidence gathering needing to be thorough (and legal)

 

[Swiss Toni]

The law requires 100% certainty, and I certainly agree with that. Whether it is speeding or manslaughter does not make any difference. Better the guilty walk free than vice versa.
This means that the authorities gathering the evidence have to be extremely thorough and careful.

No problem with this ("beyond reasonable doubt" isn't 100% certainty, I would argue) but...

The issue is about how society is prepared to say an individual has a responsibility for their actions? If you have no responsibility for declaring who was driving your car at the time it was used to commit an offence, are you happy with that? (as a victim or as an offender).

 

[timmy]

There are murderers walking free because courts felt that the evidence that 100% proved they were guilty (and they were guilty!) was obtained unfairly - whether that be as a result of incompetence or "noble cause corruption". The law says (in simple terms) that the methods by which the evidence is obtained must be fair or else the results will be void.

Not true, and inaccurate. Evidence obtained illegally can still be deemed as admissable by a court.