The human rights of speeders ...

[Roadcraft]

Lets see what public opinion is when someone wriggles out on a technicality after moving down some school children on a crossing or something....

[rlmr]

Always used to annoy me to read of cases where drivers "got off" with drink driving because (for example) the cop did not wear his hat whilst demanding the breath test from the accused... held that the officer was not in uniform therefore the whole process thereafter, including the result of the blood analysis, was illegal even though the excessive alcohol/blood level was not contested .

Thankfully that loop hole was tightened up... just as well as so few cops wear their uniform caps these days... I must be too old fashioned

RR

[Big Err]

just as well as so few cops wear their uniform caps these days... I must be too old fashioned

There isn't enough head room in the cars

[rlmr]

There isn't enough head room in the cars

OK I agree... but at least you and I would wear our caps when we were out of the motor. It needs somehting to signify someone is a cop... without a cap / hat today's cops are just another person in a black cycling vest or yellow jacket

RR

[7db]

Thankfully that loop hole was tightened up...

For other reasons I've been looking into charging and defences to failure to provide a specimen and other drink drive related law. That loophole is now not only well and truly shut, but you're also no longer allowed to use the custody officer beating the crap out of you as a defence to failing to supply a specimen (DPP v Brodzky 1997).

Oh and incidentally, if yu're too p*ssed to understand the warning that failing to provide is an offence, then that's no defence, either...

[rlmr]

...but you're also no longer allowed to use the custody officer beating the crap out of you as a defence to failing to supply a specimen (DPP v Brodzky 1997).

Must be an English Case

RR

[MGF]

Never ceases to amaze me how my fellow citizens refer to fundamental principles of justice (that predate both the invention of the internal combustion engine and the establishment of the police) as 'technicalities'.

The right to silence is a logical extension of the principle of a presumption of innocence.

In fact; this protection from the state is considered so important in the US that it is enshrined in their Constitution.

Personally I believe there is a difference between a regulatory offence such as speeding where imprisonment is not an option and a 'true' crime where it is.

In the case of regulatory offences these principles of justice would make conviction impossible.

And that is what many people want. the elimnation of regulatory speeding offences or at least to make them sufficiently unenforceable whereby impunity from breaking them is almost guaranteed.

[rlmr]

The right to silence is a logical extension of the principle of a presumption of innocence.

If you have nothing to hide... why keep silent

...just a thought.

RR

[Roadcraft]

you've done it now Rennie..you've opened the floodgates for the lettuce sucking liberals.... I've gone to the weapons cupboard for safety...

[martine]

Never ceases to amaze me how my fellow citizens refer to fundamental principles of justice (that predate both the invention of the internal combustion engine and the establishment of the police) as 'technicalities'.

Sometimes 'technicalities' are better described as 'loopholes' - as in: they are exploited against what most would consider true justice. Occasionally it is obvious for all to see that someone is guilty and I find it abhorent that sometimes the defendent goes free due to procedural errors or simply poor law. Yes, yes I know it's the defence's job to do this and yes I know it will ultimately go towards improving the law but in the meantime, a criminal gets to walk free and I hate that and indeed it can be very dangerous.

The right to silence is an interesting one and if I were on a jury I would consider it very strange behaviour and it wouldn't count in their favour!

And that is what many people want. the elimnation of regulatory speeding offences or at least to make them sufficiently unenforceable whereby impunity from breaking them is almost guaranteed.

Errr no...that's what a minority want.

Clearly getting the balance right between protecting against false imprisionment and letting a criminal go free is tricky but sometimes I think the balance is too far towards the former.

[rlmr]

Clearly getting the balance right between protecting against false imprisionment and letting a criminal go free is tricky but sometimes I think the balance is too far towards the former.

Quite. Our legal system does make some almighty cock-ups, but generally the principles are still sound. However as you say, sometimes "we" err too far on the side of the accused at the expense of the victims.

RR

[rlmr]

you've done it now Rennie..

Old habits die hard

RR

[MGF]

The right to silence is a logical extension of the principle of a presumption of innocence.

If you have nothing to hide... why keep silent

...just a thought.

RR

From the point of view of the person asking the question, he would not ask it unless he believed the person being asked might be guilty.

The person asking the question believes the person has a duty to assist in establishing his innocence.

That is contrary to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Possibly innocent, possibly guilty until it is established someone is guilty and an expectation that the suspect is obliged to help establish his innocence is not the same as innocent until proven guilty.

To believe this is not to believe in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

That of itself, I have not commented on. What I have commented on is the way in which people believe the principle is some new political concept. As if we could look back into our history, the good old days when criminals didn't have the protection of these new-fangled ideas.

My point is those days haven't existed for hundreds of years. The fact the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty' has lasted so long is testament to how fundamental it is to our way of life.

Many people wish to take away these fundamental rights that epitomise the type of society we live in, in the pursuit of greater efficacy in bringing criminals to justice.

Nothing wrong with wanting that, although I don't agree with it, but it is misguided to believe that the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' is a 'technicality' or indeed the consequence of modern politics.

[MGF]

you've done it now Rennie..you've opened the floodgates for the lettuce sucking liberals.... I've gone to the weapons cupboard for safety...

Not only is it is incorrect to view the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty' as a 'technicality' it serves no purpose in using insulting phrases to describe the people who may believe in it.

In any event, my point, which you seem to have missed, isn't in the absoluteness of the doctrine; that is clear from my comments on it being necessary for regulatory offences.

My point is that 'lettuce eating liberalism' as you call it is a fundamental characteristic of British society, historically, in particular English society.

Now there are people who disagree with the principle as indeed there were English people who supported the Nazis in the 1930's. We are a pluralist society after all.

My point however cannot be any clearer and that is 'innocent until proven guilty' and its logical extension 'right to silence' are fundamental principles and not technicalities.

[rlmr]

Awe... I liked the bit about English history when you drowned folk to make sure they were not witches... or burnt them. I can't quite recall when England started their new fangled idea of innocent till proven guilty... was that after you stopped hanging 6 year olds for stealing bread to feed their families or just after you deported everyone to Australia.. Hence the origin of such quaint English phrases as "just as well being hung for a sheep as a lamb"

I am afraid I can only comment of Scot's Law, which has had the innocent till proven guilty ethos for some time, even though I believe we drowned a few innocent non-witches as well . Suffice it to say whilst it was not perfect, I policed under the "innocent till proven guilty" system and would not have had it any other way... even though it is not a perfect system.

RR