Speeding: Right To Silence

[DieselE]

The BBC has just announced (09:00) that the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights has failed. No change in UK Policy then!

 

[masqueraid]

Press release on the judgement from ECHR here

 

[Benzowner]

I did not think it would succeed, the right to silence is, surely for the accused, not the witness. When asked, who was driving the car, the registered keeper of the car gets the letter detailing that a crime was being commited. Surely if you do not identify the driver, can you not be held for aiding and abetting a criminal. I musy admit, though, it seemed a long way to go for 3 points and £60 fine

 

[Sp!ke]

Balderdash!

 

[glojo]

We are always told that we are a sovereign nation and not sub servant to Europe

Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:

Jean-Paul Costa (French), President,
Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss),
Christos Rozakis (Greek),
Nicolas Bratza (British),
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian),
Riza Türmen (Turkish),
Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian)
Josep Casadevall (Andorran),
Matti Pellonpää (Finnish),
Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian),
Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan),
Lech Garlicki (Polish),
Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish),
Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian),
Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina),
Egbert Myjer (Dutch),
Ján Šikuta (Slovak), judges,

and also Vincent Berger, Jurisconsult.

I have nothing against Armenia, Moldova or any of the other countries but should they really be passing judgement on our laws?
John​

 

[masqueraid]

Don't be too harsh on the Moldovans, their representative and the Dutch judge actually ruled in favour of the plaintiffs.

 

[glojo]

Don't be too harsh on the Moldovans, their representative and the Dutch judge actually ruled in favour of the plaintiffs.

I'm not picking those two countries out for any specific reason, I just think it wrong that other countries should be allowed to over-rule our own judicial system.

Regards
John

 

[DieselE]

I'm not picking those two countries out for any specific reason, I just think it wrong that other countries should be allowed to over-rule our own judicial system.

Regards
John

Totally agree with you. But if we continue the discussion we'll fall foul of the no politics or religion rules.

 

[Swiss Toni]

If you look at the ruling in isolation, S172 RTA - it applies in all cases where there is an allegation against the driver of a vehicle.

Someone causes injury and drives off, this is the basis of the enforcement that takes place.

 

[IBIZA]

Totally agree with you. But if we continue the discussion we'll fall foul of the no politics or religion rules.

And talking of politics - S172 failed to convict when faced with the Hamilton defence.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/stephen_gerlis/article690244.ece

 

[glojo]

And talking of politics - S172 failed to convict when faced with the Hamilton defence.

Someone mention the Hamilton's?

John

 

[Swiss Toni]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Holman.

Holman.

Holman.

 

[Silestanix]

Damnit...!

 

[timskemp]

complete judgement here

 

[timskemp]

I particularly like this part of the dissenting judge's comment

"If the public interest in catching minor offenders (persons committing speeding or parking offences) is
so great as to justify limitations on the privilege against self-incrimination, what would be the position
when the issue concerned serious offences? Is the public interest in catching those who commit crimes
which cost people's lives less great than in catching those who slightly exceed the speed limit?
In my view it is illogical for persons who have committed minor offences to find themselves in a less
favourable situation than those who have committed acts which are truly dangerous to society.
I am very much afraid that if one begins seeking to justify departures from the basic principles of
modern criminal procedure and the very essence of the notion of a fair trial for reasons of policy, and if
the Court starts accepting such reasons, we will face a real threat to the European public order as protected
by the Convention."

 

[DieselE]

I particularly like this part of the dissenting judge's comment

Regardless of anyone's views on speeding, there is a lot of sense in that judge's comment.

 

[glojo]

Regardless of anyone's views on speeding, there is a lot of sense in that judge's comment.

I wonder how the remarks apply to his own country?

I have always maintained that an innocent person has nothing to fear, but gosh.... It's an infringement of our civil liberties\human rights.

If we choose to flout laws then we should accept there are consequences.

I wonder how much this appeal cost, and who will foot the bill?

John

 

[crockers]

I wonder how the remarks apply to his own country?

I have always maintained that an innocent person has nothing to fear, but gosh.... It's an infringement of our civil liberties\human rights.

If we choose to flout laws then we should accept there are consequences.

I wonder how much this appeal cost, and who will foot the bill?

John

We all will through our taxes..... but if on the rich can pay for appeals something is terribly wrong with the law....

 

[glojo]

We all will through our taxes..... but if on the rich can pay for appeals something is terribly wrong with the law....

To a degree I agree but it is embarrassing to read the grounds of some appeals.

I also fully, fully agree that we all must have the right to appeal and the genuine appellant must have access to legal aid when entitled, but should they be able to hire the services of the most expensive advocates? (Question and not opinion)

Should career criminals who have dedicated their lives to crime and always when caught, plead not guilty and then they appeal, appeal, appeal? (Question and not opinion)

My only opinion on this saga is our laws should not be influenced by other nations and we are continually told by politicians that this is the case?? but that is going down a political route.

John the Right Wing player for Tottenham Hotspurs

 

[IBIZA]

But what happens if you do identify the driver of your car at the time - then they deny it and say it was a third party - which it seems they are under no obligation to identify.

A while ago a woman got six months for taking the points for her husband, after they installed a camera ahead of the speed one to show the face of the driver. I wonder how many of the 1000 or so they released earlier this week were in for something more serious.

I have a friend in Estonia who has said she is happy to take the points for any camera stopping me here as long as I pay the fine and send her chocolate - this shows the amount of disrespect this law carries - especially given her job title "chief inspector"!