At last someone has the spare time and cash on their hands to challenge the legality of the NIP! There's an article in The Times today about someone being prosecuted for failing to identify the driver of his car being granted an adjournment to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

IMHO he has a very good case - being forced under threat of prosecution to place yourself at the scene of a crime is a huge infringement of your right not to incriminate yourself.

 

The Right to remain silent!

If there was camera footage of someone breaking into a house and they thought it was a particular person it would be down to the evidence and his statement etc... he is unlikely to say "Yes I was breaking into that house!" likewise why should someone say "Yes I was driving at 60 in a 30"....

Although we are starting to push driving offences into the Criminal system if we are not careful...

If I got pulled over by a Police car and done for Speeding I'd be annoyed but think "Fair enough" but a camera is a way different ball game, but you are still breaking the law I guess...

 

The Gatso equivalent of this is "we think that you were breaking into a house, so either name the real burglar or we will nick you anyway"!!!!! Oh, and it will all be done by post so that plod doesn't get cold or wet

Good luck to the challenge, and bring back "real" (not remote) Policing.

mb

 

Best of luck to him, it will be interesting to see the outcome and the police view on this.

 

Well, I reckon you should just not speed then you aint got a worry in the world have you??

On a more positive note - my sister had a NIP and they didnt know who in the family was driving on that date at that time - they requested sight of the photo, which they were supplied with ... cr4p photo, so said that they didnt know who was driving .... didnt hear anything else about it!!

I am surprised that they are allowing someone to challenge the NIP request to name the driver ..... as I understood it, they were allowing those who refused to get away with it, rather than prove its an infringement of human rights!!

Pete

 

I saw this on the BBC news this morning. He was driving a vintage car at the time. Had a search but could not find anything on the BBC website..

 

From the Times yesterday:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,...000415,00.html

 

A mighty slap on the back and GOOD LUCK to this chap.


M

 

Good on him ! and Good Luck

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1688000/1688711.stm

Nothing to do with the above, on the subject of speed cameras, nice to see that ministers are leading the way, this one in particular painted his beard and moose yellow.

 

Hi Mark,

If I remember rightly you were due an addition to the household last year. Did the hapy event go well??

 

Nimbus, you're quiet these days or am I just not on as much now.

Yes, the little one arrived, a girl of 8lb 7oz on Oct 11th, she's a right little babe to look at, well at the moment (biased). One minute the 0-3 months things fit, next thing she's in 3-6 stuff. I've taken here out in the scoob a couple of times and god, do I feel proud. I ddin't realise such a small thing could fart so well, couldn't resist it.

How's your little one?, everything OK

All the best, Mark

 

Mark,

Not getting on Scoobynet as much as I used to. Work getting in the way

My little girl is growing up quick. She is a real dream baby (most of the time). I know just what you meen about driving around with them in the car. I'm telling the wife that I'm taking the baby to the nest Scooby meet .


[Edited by Nimbus - 03/01/2002 17:02:45]

 

Getting back to the point I seem to recall a thread somewhere (probably here or panclan) about an Inspector who used the same defence, needless to say it was dropped in this instance, after all what could possibly be gained by besmirching a fine citizen such as a policeman
Dan

 

I can see two sides to this..

1. He (or who ever was driving) should not have been doing 47mph in a 30 zone. I'm sure most people here would agree that the 30's are there for a reason (bulit up area, kids playing nearby etc). This behavour is unacceptable.

2. The Gvmnt blanket message "Speed Kills" is wrong. It is not speed in itself, but driver inteligence and awareness (or lack of it). It may well have been "safe" to drive at 47 in a 30 and no harm was done. The driver should be a good judge to whether a speed is "safe". The fight is not about trying to get off a fine and points, but about the blatent use of cameras for revenue generation and not for road saftey. (the chap on the BBC quoted a statistic that in Essex road accidents had increased after introduction of additonal cameras.

 

30 zones used to exist solely because of the dangers of pedestrians, the design spec of the road, etc.. Nowadays, 30, 40 & 50 zones are often created for political reasons such as deliberately slowing down cars or to create congestion (so that we can then get levied with a congestion charge!) or for revenue-generating purposes.

These two articles from the Association of British Drivers make for interesting reading:
The ABDs submission to the UK government to raise the UK motorway limit.
A police view of government anti-speed policy.

[Edited by DavidRB - 03/01/2002 17:30:36]

 

Must agree with DavidRB, there are far too many roads in Surrey that do not warrent a 30 limit. A number of roads have also been reduced from 60 to 40 with the additional revenue earning camera. The roads in question are not accident zones or in populated areas, pure political and financial crap.

 

Thats got to be the best news ive heard all year, about time and good luck to the guy.

 

there are a lot of worried people awaiting the outcome of what happens when it gets to court .... as everybody could then challenge the legality of their conviction under similar circumstances ...

the refusal to say who's driving the car at the time of when such an offence allegedly took place is becoming increasingly common ... and as a result at the moment a lot of police forces are not pursuing the matter ... food for thought perhaps .....

 

wuastc (wake up and smell the coffee) a new abreviation for the world to use

anyway wuastc, this guy is not gonna get off.. why? cause hes wrong, he was speeding (not gonna bother with a "good job he didnt kill your kid at 17mph over the limit in a vintage (200yards to stop) car)

the use of 30mph limits is iffy, but just cause its iffy doesnt mean its not the law. if people feel strongly then campaign, complain, demonstrate but dont just ignore the law then try to wiggle out- if this was a car theif using his "rights" to get round an obvious wrong doing then ppl would do their nut- if fact there is post elsewhere all about the iffy justice system not punishing ppl.

send him down, crush his old car (maybe not but give him 3 points)

Tiggs

 

Tiggs,

but it is because catching speeding drivers has now become so easy, that speed limits are being reduced to ridiculous levels in the name of so-called "revenue gen..", er, "road safety".

Drivers don't have a chance to protest or object, because tiny notices are posted on lamp posts or in the back of local newspapers to "notify" people of the proposed change (the minimum legal requirement!). Obviously drivers don't see these, and the limit is reduced (but NEVER increased!!!).

One of the main roads into Birmingham - wide, good visibility, parallel service roads and NO schools was recently reduced from 40mph to 30mph by simply removing the 40-signs (oh, and recalibrating the many Gatsos to 30-and-a-tad mph).

Most motorists, even regulars and locals, didn't notice the change in the limit, and during the first few days probably several hundred were nicked. Even the residents who live on the road (who normally request/support reduced limits) were complaining about how ridiculous the change was.

The authorities and Police are abusing their power at the moment, with regard to the motorist. If this Human Rights case helps bring a bit of common sense into Policing (e.g. by "hands-on" enforcement that can take into account circumstances, rather than "dumb" technology) then it is worth it - even if the guy was "technicallly" speeding.

mb

 

I don't think that he is arguing about the speed, it's the fact that he doesn't want to incriminate himelf or any one else. The fact the they have written and asked for the drivers details is the point of the challange

Dave

 

so if speeders have a right to silence like "normal" criminals what so we expect the police to do then? ignore the offence, investigate it? you want CID investigating his movemnets to prove he was there?

tiggs

 

I think the issue is that once the government gets away with eroding our rights in this area, they will roll up their sleeves and tackle the next freedom that has the unfortunate side effect of making government more difficult.

Say what you like about the Americans, at times I really envy their Bill of Rights.

 

The problem with this case is that the right to remain silent, and the attached right against self-incrimination, does not necessarily apply to motoring offences.

A chap called Brown took this point in Scotland and the Scottish courts agreed that he should not be forced to incriminate himself and for a while we were all taking this point in more serious offences as scots law is persuasive authority (not binding) on English law.

Unfortunately, the Privy Council (the House of Lords sitting abroad) did not agree with Scotland and closed the gap and said that the margin of appreciation (i.e. how strong the individual principle of Human Rights involved, here right against self-incrimination more properly called, should be applied in relation to how significant the offence mishcief is) was such that there was a greater public danger from speeding than from forcing those suspected of speeding to signify who was driving the car. It was in the interests of the public to prevent speeding and if forcing drivers to incriminate themselves was the best way of doing that, they could do so. Speeding is not so serious that forced incrimination was undesirable.

Going to the ECHR is unlikely to help IMHO. The ECHR will more likely say that it is up to the English Courts in offences such as these to enforce principles to protect the public.

However, there are three judges in the ECHR that take robust views. If they are sitting, he has a chance.

Good luck to him. I've argued worse points!

 

If he wins then we'll see an increase of speeding. Everyone will use the 'I don't know who was driving' line. They'll put the cameras facing the cars which will blind people and help motorcyclists get away with speeding because they'll have helmets on.
I'm not innocent and I do speed a fair bit, but I cant see a way of enforcing speed traps otherwise. I think the problem is the Gatsos have lost credibility in that their only put where there are likely to be speeders rather than accidents. Also I'm not a fan of the "Speed Kills" argument as its actually "Bad Driving Kills" but that wouldn't work as a advertising slogan because the guy in front of you driving at 50 in a 30 talking on his mobile and changing gears says "I am a good driver!, doesn't apply to me!" And the same applies to the old boy driving at 35 on a motorway in the middle lane.

It's all flawed and needs an overhaul

Maz

On the subject of speeding can I ask your informed opinion. A friend of mine was caught (Traffic Car) speeding (average over 110mph - Bike) late at night (only 2 vehicles on motorway at time) This was back in May but he's heard nothing since. Is there a time limit for these. We believed it was 6 months and a day. (Don't know where we got that from!)

 

6 months from the date of the offence to receiving the summons - otherwise the case becomes statute barred, and can't be heard at court.

btw - did you know that TWOC is also statute barred after 6 months? So if some toerag nicks your car, then admits it 7 months later, then he can't be charged for it

The law's an ***.

 

BURR

Eyethankewe sir.

 

You're right about the six months and a day rule. sectiob 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 states (from memory as I cannot be bothered to look it up) that if any summary only offence (includes common assault, threatening words and behaviour, most motoring offences and TDA/TWOC) that if the offence is not summons or charged within 6 months of its commission then tough ****.

The police often charge ABH for a common assault and affray for threatening behaviour to get round this. But as far as TWOC is concerned, there are other offences that could be charged instead to avoid the 6 month time limit.

Hope that helps. If I can be of any further assistance, don't use my old email, just post me here.

Maz.

 

IT_WW (or whatever?)

You can't "see a way of enforcing speed traps otherwise". How about having a police officer present who confirms the identity of the offender and uses common sense to decide whether the offence was significant or not. Oo-err, that's what they used to do and it costs more money. But was also IMHO much fairer on everybody.


Tiggs

"why? cause hes wrong, he was speeding ..." What evidence have you got that the police don't have? It is because there is an element of doubt over the offender's identity that the problems arise.

Just my 2p.