1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Speeding... hopefully some good news

silver75 Sep 27, 2006

  1. silver75

    silver75 Big Ron

    Speed camera fight goes to Europe

    [​IMG] The motorists claim existing laws affect the right to a fair trial

    European judges are being asked to rule in a case that could limit the use of speed cameras in the UK.
    Campaigners claim requiring car owners to reveal details of who was driving a vehicle caught speeding on camera is a breach of their right to silence.
    Human rights group Liberty is backing two motorists in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg after the courts rejected their arguments.
    The Department for Transport said it would "vigorously" defend current laws.
    "The case essentially concerns the requirement for vehicle keepers to identify the driver of a vehicle identified on a speed camera," a spokesman said.
    "The applicants claim this requirement breaches the right against self-incrimination and thereby their right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.
    [​IMG][​IMG] You should not be made subject to a criminal penalty in order to make you provide information that then forms part of the prosecution case against you [​IMG]

    James Welch of Liberty

    "The UK government does not accept this claim."
    The case is being brought by Idris Francis, from West Meon, Hampshire, and Gerard O'Halloran, from London.
    Their lawyer, James Welch of Liberty, said if their case was successful the government would have to find new ways of collecting evidence for motoring offences.
    Under current laws a driver had two choices - either to admit they were driving, or to refuse to provide information on the driver, he said.
    'Mass prosecutions'
    If the driver conceded they were driving, he said it would amount to an admission and form part of the prosecution case against them.
    And if the driver refused to provide information, they would be prosecuted under different laws.
    Mr Welch said: "This offends against a very important principle - namely that you should not have to incriminate yourself.
    "You should not be made subject to a criminal penalty in order to make you provide information that then forms part of the prosecution case against you."
    The case renews the debate about speed cameras, with campaign groups on either side joining the argument over the case.
    Paul Smith from the Safe Speed group, who believes cameras divert motorists' attention away from the roads, said British justice had been "undermined for the sake of nothing more than needless mass prosecutions".
    Jools Townsend from the Brake charity, who supports speed cameras, said if the pair won their case it would have a "devastating effect" on road safety in the country. The court's ruling on section 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is not expected for several months.

  2. MushroomMan

    MushroomMan Sucemabite

    Is there any advice as to how we should deal with speeding notices in the meantime. i.e. speeding notices originating from rear flashing cameras?

    I have one pending, and not sure what to do with the form.
  3. MikeA3

    MikeA3 Active Member VCDS Map User

    I think some people have asked for a calibration certificate for the camera to prove it's 100% accurate - might delay / halt the process as lots of people are doing it so it's causing a paperwork backlog.
  4. silver75

    silver75 Big Ron

    Basically that form is asking you to either incriminate yourself or whoever was driving, and the alleged driver will receive a penalty of 3 points and a £60 fine.
    If you dont complete it then they can prosecute you under 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act , the penalty is 3 points and a fine.
    The PACE witness statement is (in theory) the only way out of it, the theory is you dont complete the speeding notice, but you provide the information required on a seperate sheet of paper to satisfy your requirements under 172. You do this on account that the information cant be used in evidence against you.
    So basically you provide all the information required of you but not on the notice of intended prosecution.

Share This Page