The human rights of speeders ...

[marcw06]

The link below caught my eye in the news - an odd defence to speeding - and does it really matter who was driving? Surely the fine is a civil matter between the owner and who ever the owner allowed to drive his car? Admittedly the matter of endorsements needs to be resolved but it just seems to smack of an abrogation of responsibilty and of using technicalities to avoid prosecution - and costing the taxpayer an arm and a leg to contest their claims.


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/27092006/344/d ... -laws.html

[7db]

The link below caught my eye in the news - an odd defence to speeding - and does it really matter who was driving? Surely the fine is a civil matter between the owner and who ever the owner allowed to drive his car?

It does matter as it is a criminal offence against the driver not (as with parking) a civil penalty against the keeper. If you don't know who was driving, then there can't be a successful prosecution.

The registered keeper is required (S172) to make reasonable efforts to identify the driver and disclose that to the CC on request. This then forms the prosecution's evidence about who was driving.

The case highlighted is about whether in requiring the RK to name himself when he is driving the law has breached his right not to incriminate himself. I can't see it winning, but it would drive a coach and horses through speedcamera fines if it were passed.

[TripleS]

The link below caught my eye in the news - an odd defence to speeding - and does it really matter who was driving? Surely the fine is a civil matter between the owner and who ever the owner allowed to drive his car?

It does matter as it is a criminal offence against the driver not (as with parking) a civil penalty against the keeper. If you don't know who was driving, then there can't be a successful prosecution.

The registered keeper is required (S172) to make reasonable efforts to identify the driver and disclose that to the CC on request. This then forms the prosecution's evidence about who was driving.

The case highlighted is about whether in requiring the RK to name himself when he is driving the law has breached his right not to incriminate himself. I can't see it winning, but it would drive a coach and horses through speedcamera fines if it were passed.

I eagerly await the joyous sound of a coach and horses in full flight.

In this case I do hope you're mistaken David.

Best wishes,
Dave.

[marcw06]

To clarify:

My issue is not so much with the challenge per se but rather the message that it sends about our society - one of an abrogation of responsibilty where some laws are more socially convenient than others ... clearly having ones rights violated isn't OK but neither is the act of speeding ... and on an advanced driving point; if the guy didnt see the cameras or orange flashing speed limit signs or simply didnt know what the speed was then what else didn't he see?

I think we would all rather see more traffic police on the roads rather than cameras but we all know they're there and we all know what will happen if we get caught - I just feel that this issue is more about the fact that speeding is deemed to be socially acceptable - which all comes back to driver attitude - which is really where advanced driving begins and ends ...

Just a thought and I'll get off my soapbox now ...

[SammyTheSnake]

The link below caught my eye in the news - an odd defence to speeding - and does it really matter who was driving? Surely the fine is a civil matter between the owner and who ever the owner allowed to drive his car?

It does matter as it is a criminal offence against the driver not (as with parking) a civil penalty against the keeper. If you don't know who was driving, then there can't be a successful prosecution.

The registered keeper is required (S172) to make reasonable efforts to identify the driver and disclose that to the CC on request. This then forms the prosecution's evidence about who was driving.

The case highlighted is about whether in requiring the RK to name himself when he is driving the law has breached his right not to incriminate himself. I can't see it winning, but it would drive a coach and horses through speedcamera fines if it were passed.

This is a major de ja vu for me, I'm sure I've seen this exact question before and gave the same answer, and even thought "gosh, what a de ja vu!"...

For sure, under the american constitution, this would work because there is a very explicit freedom to not incriminate oneself (5th ammendment, I believe) but in the UK/Europe, we don't have that. I'd be interested to read the relevant bit(s) of the human rights legislation we do have in force and see what they have to say.

As you say, speed cameras would be pretty much useless as they stand if this guy wins his test case. Probably 90% or more of speed cameras face the rear of the vehicle. Even if they faced the front of the car, they'd have a hard time reliably getting a clear picture of the face of the driver. What if the driver were wearing some kind of mask? Or a motorcycle helmet? (in which case you'd need a second camera to ge the numberplate on the rear of the bike anyway!)

I'll be interested to see the outcome of this one...

For me personally, I'd quite welcome the chance to be able to pay more attention to the road conditions and how my speed matches them than to how my speed matches to a numbered scale. On the other hand, I'd rather be given strict speed guidelines than trust the "average but thinks he's above average" driver to make that judgement whe he's sharing the road I'm trying to use...

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

[rlmr]

From what I can remember, the Law requires the registered keeper to reveal who was driving their vehicle at a time / date / location. It does not require the registered keeper to admit to exceeding the speed limit at that time... just to driving. The matter of the Speeding Contravention is dealt with AFTER the driver has been established.

For these reasons I believe the appeal should / will fail.

I do have to admit that whilst there is a time and place for Camera's to compliment human enforcement, I believe some cameras are sited on the basis of revenue generation with road safety secondary. Nevertheless I believe our traffic legislation is currently correct.

RR

[waremark]

If the British parliament wants to be able to force RK's to report who was driving then it should be able to do so. It is absurd to have surrendered our national sovereignty on such issues.

It is even more absurd to have to accept the expense and inefficiency of going to the European Court to clarify an abstruse point of law.

But I don't think this post has anything to do with Advanced Driving! Or with the much more interesting questions which Paul Smith was trying to address about whether Speed Cameras as currently used are a GOOD THING.

[martine]

The chap contesting this was interviewed on BBC R4 lunchtime news today. He started saying this was a contravention of human rights and it's a fundamental principle not to incriminate yourself etc. etc.

He also said the penalty for NOT revealing who was driving was unfair (up to £1000 plus court appreance, defence costs etc). When the interviewer pressed him and said that clearly that was his choice as he could simply accept the £60 & 3 points, he then extended his argument by saying that speed cameras were shown not to save lives so they were flawed.

The minister for transport (Mr. Ladyman) intereviewed immediately after said: "this man has his own view and is just trying to avoid keeping to the speed limits - it's not about human rights" (or words to that effect). I think he nailed it on the head and I was surprised he was a direct as that.

Everyone expects him to lose the case in the Europe (it's already been dismissed in the UK courts) so it just amounts to a waste of time and money.

Personally I broadly support speed cameras but they are a rather blunt instrument - in a perfect world they would be loads more traffic police making a judgement about what is safe and acceptable and what is not.

[vonhosen]

The link below caught my eye in the news - an odd defence to speeding - and does it really matter who was driving? Surely the fine is a civil matter between the owner and who ever the owner allowed to drive his car?

It does matter as it is a criminal offence against the driver not (as with parking) a civil penalty against the keeper. If you don't know who was driving, then there can't be a successful prosecution.

The registered keeper is required (S172) to make reasonable efforts to identify the driver and disclose that to the CC on request. This then forms the prosecution's evidence about who was driving.

The case highlighted is about whether in requiring the RK to name himself when he is driving the law has breached his right not to incriminate himself. I can't see it winning, but it would drive a coach and horses through speedcamera fines if it were passed.

I'd imagine in the wake of the coach & horses would be councils having the ability to give you PCNs (no points though) & then you'd get FPN/court hearings/points where stopped by Police.

If it is decriminalised so that councils can go the PCN route, expect the number of cameras to grow massively, along with the number of prosecutions. Look back to Parking enforcement to see what could be likely. There will no court case if it did happen, just a fine for the registered keeper & bailiffs if you don't pay.

[7db]

I can live without the nightmare scenario before dinner, thanks Von...

[MGF]

...clearly having ones rights violated isn't OK but neither is the act of speeding ...

That's the point marc, many people (not necessarily me) believe that some speeding is ok and that being subject to criminal sanctions for doing so is morally unacceptable. An unreasonable interference by the state in the lives of its citizens. So the state is violating their rights by creating and enforcing this law.

...From what I can remember, the Law requires the registered keeper to reveal who was driving their vehicle at a time / date / location. It does not require the registered keeper to admit to exceeding the speed limit at that time... just to driving. The matter of the Speeding Contravention is dealt with AFTER the driver has been established.

The complication is that if the police are demanding this information as part of a criminal investigation then normally they would have to inform the person whether or not he is a suspect or a witness.

If the former, then regardless of whether or not a prosecution has commenced the individual has the right to remain silent (sort of).

He clearly doesn't as the law stands, in fact the opposite is true.

I believe the weakness in their argument is in the fact you don't have to be a registered keeper of a vehicle. You can choose not to put one on the road. If you do, then you agree to co-operate with the police in their investigations.

If you don't want to incriminate yourself don't register a vehicle. With most crimes you cannot avoid being part of the investigation (unless of course you are guilty!) so the right to silence has different meaning, in my view.

If you are the director of a company which is being investigated for fraud you have a statutory obligation to answer certain questions about the business. You don't have the right to silence. That is the responsibility attached to your choice to become a director of a company.

Speeding is also a summary offence and with all summary offences you are not entitled to the full protection of fundamental principles eg, trial by jury, double jeopardy.

If the British parliament wants to be able to force RK's to report who was driving then it should be able to do so. It is absurd to have surrendered our national sovereignty on such issues.

So what issues should we surrender our sovereignty on?

It is worth mentioning that the Human Rights Act is a product of Parliamentary Sovereignty and requires legislation to be compatible with the ECHR. So strictly speaking sovereignty hasn't been surrendered, merely delegated.

Around 2000 pieces of delegated legislation are created each year by Government departments etc that are the consequence of Parliament 'surrendering' its sovereign right to make the law.

I'd imagine in the wake of the coach & horses would be councils having the ability to give you PCNs (no points though) & then you'd get FPN/court hearings/points where stopped by Police.

So true. This is how the Government has got round unfavourable judgements in the ECHR before. Just make them civil matters.

Sovereignty is well and truly with the Executive in my view.

If this were to happen then i'm sure the 'safespeed' campaign would lose all credibitlity with the public. That's the problem with zeolots. Unintended consequences. And they make some good points as well.

[Nigel]

I'm not sure I agree with this chaps arguements....but if it does any harm to scamera's....I hope he wins

[marcw06]

Surely though - whilst there may be limited scope for an argument based on human rights, which is likely to fail - isn't this REALLY just a smoke screen for wriggling out of a speeding conviction using technicalities?

I have many and various objections to speed cameras and the civilianisation(?) of speed limit enforcement but we all know there are cameras and we all know they are there and we all fully understand the potential financial risks associated with exceeding the posted limit - as far as I'm concerned the guy should just suck it up and deal with it and stop costing the tax payer shed loads of money over a £60 fine and a few points ...

The public usually has very limited sympathy with criminals using alleged human rights as smoke screens for wriggling out of convictions and were this a more serious offence (murder, rape, pedophilia) we would all be up in arms about it - as it is, speeding seems to be socially acceptable.

Besides, if he genuinely feels so strongly about the protection of human rights then why do we not see him involved in the many other real human and privacy rights violations that take place in this country? ... but I think we all really know the answer to that one ...

[rlmr]

...isn't this REALLY just a smoke screen for wriggling out of a speeding conviction using technicalities?

Yep. Looks that way to me.

RR

[Gareth]

Besides, if he genuinely feels so strongly about the protection of human rights then why do we not see him involved in the many other real human and privacy rights violations that take place in this country? ... but I think we all really know the answer to that one ...

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, comments such as these fail to take into account that the people involved are putting themselves to a heap more trouble than accepting the fine and the points, unless, perhaps, if it was to result in a ban.