Reply to: Speed-trap police are told to look before they pounce

[AtW]

however ti has certainly caused a lot of problems for the SFO in trying to do anybody (rightly so in my opinion).

If its serious fraud then there should be paper trail -- someone gained bad money somewhere and in huge quantity, so you might not do them for fraud, but can do for tax evasion -- Al Capone is a good precedent.

Another example is UK law that will send to prison anybody who refuses to provide decryption keys to the police -- I have not heard much about this actually happening (people can be pursvuaded to talk by other means) but the law stands.

I don't like fraudsters but I don't like idea of self-incrimination even more. A bit of a shame that this country has not got written constritution like they have int he USA.

[ASB]

6(1) Echr

What this actually gives is the right to a fair trial. It has been held that the declaration under the Road Traffic Act which is legally required is prejudicial to this.

It also rather stuffs up the serious fraud office. Here interviews at the DTI force you to answer questions (quite what sanction there is for just answering them all "I am a dalek" I don't know). However the answers given to these can be used in a subsequent criminal trial. Whether or not this breaches the ECHR is possibly questionable, however ti has certainly caused a lot of problems for the SFO in trying to do anybody (rightly so in my opinion).

[AtW]

Hmm, that's interesting - In the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 the Tories, to their shame, abolished the right to silence, i.e. this act included a section specifying that an adverse inference could be drawn from silence, and the wording of cautions during arrests was changed accordingly:

If true, then this is rather crap and low-life thing to do worthy of New Labour -- I don't think it matters much in serious criminal cases where guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt (and silence can't be part of that proof), but in small fish cases like speeding where proof is based on balance of probabilities it is easy for magistrates to do you based on their legal right to infer

They can't do you solely based on your silence though, and the caution must still be served -- if it was not then whatever your say can't be used in court, which is why PACE defence was invented.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. He issued a form of statement of intent rather than a declaration of war.

In fact this is not entirely accurate as the invasion of Poland was conducted not just by Nazi Germany but also the Soviet Union who divided the country between them.

One of the tragic aspects of Polish history was the cowardly abandonment of Poland by Churchill and Roosevelt to the Soviets following the end of the WW2 ,

[OwlHoot]

There is also a question over whether or not it breaces article 6(1) of the ECHR. This provides the right to slience as a suspect. This right is denied by forcing completion of the certificate.

Hmm, that's interesting - In the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 the Tories, to their shame, abolished the right to silence, i.e. this act included a section specifying that an adverse inference could be drawn from silence, and the wording of cautions during arrests was changed accordingly:

"You do not have to say anything, but [it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court]. Anything you do say will be given in evidence."

So if this was negated by the ECHR, I wonder why the [bracketed] part of the caution warning about silence is still included.

[AtW]

Problem is that in this case Scottish legislation under which people get charged with speeding is not identical to that used in England and Wales, and therefore certain High Court precedents are simply not applicable in Scotland.

Would not want to find myself in Scottish court -- I probably would not understand the Judge and others and will have to ask for interpreter!

[hattra]

DEcisions in other Courts

Just following up on the issue of whether a Scottish case can be used in an English Court - IIRC you can put RELEVANT (and Judges are rather snotty about that sort of thing) precedent from any higher Commonwealth Court before a Court in a case in this country, though it's not binding. The UK Court should, however, give a reason for disregarding the overseas ruling - just as it has to when disregarding a previous ruling in an English Court

Mind you - IANAL

[AtW]

But your agent has a right of silence in court. Thus the signed NIP is back to hearsay status. There is of course plenty of other evidence!

Oh you have right to silence in court too - problem is that in this sort of cases magistrates legally can infer badly about reasons for your silence, ie it will worsen your case. Can't mind legal practice but it went up to the High Court so its hard to shoot in this direction.

I highlighted the scots case because it was one where Sectrion 172 was found to have breached ECHR. I don't think it is directly quotable in an English Court but is indicative of a possible issue since ECHR take precedence.

I whole agree with you -- problem is that it takes time for ECHR to rule, and even though there were decisions in the past in this area, the UK courts, especially magistrates, could not give a crap about it -- they just rule their way knowing nobody will appeal that high anyway, and if they would then it will take years. The system is rather wrong at this level.

At the end of the day though, obey the law and there isn't a problem. [Of course that also applies to the cameras who at long distance are not obeying the law]

Yeah, but some cameras ain't working well -- laser thingy used by mobile vans is particular suspect, it is even banned in some of US states. And worst of all -- magistrates believe technology 100%, so anybody turning up in court is pretty much toast, unless prosecution makes mistake. Is it seriously one sided there

[ASB]

"It is -- you are supposed to tell the truth to your agent and this will be used in court against you."

But your agent has a right of silence in court. Thus the signed NIP is back to hearsay status. There is of course plenty of other evidence!

I highlighted the scots case because it was one where Sectrion 172 was found to have breached ECHR. I don't think it is directly quotable in an English Court but is indicative of a possible issue since ECHR take precedence.

The PACE thing is interesting, however I smell an amendment on the way.

At the end of the day though, obey the law and there isn't a problem. [Of course that also applies to the cameras who at long distance are not obeying the law]

[AtW]

I entirely agree that none of this is likely to help ones case - but the point I was making was to counter your assertion that it was mandatory to incriminate yourself. It is not.

It is -- you are supposed to tell the truth to your agent and this will be used in court against you. If prosecution makes mistake and uses unsigned form in court as evidence of speeding, then yes -- they will fail, but now they are wise and will refuse to accept unsigned form from anybody, which means they will treat it as not supplying information and do you under section 172.

Note -- you referred to case in Scotland, and there are fairly big differences between English and Scottish law in this area. The primary difference (I think) is that you can't refer to English High Court decisions as precedents when defending in Scottish High Court. I could be wrong about this difference, but I know for fact that there are differences and what works in England won't work in Scotland, specifically recent PACE defence that seems fairly fool proof.

[ASB]

[quoteIf form is not signed then registered keeper will be done for not providing information in the first place[/quote]

Correct. But that's not the point. It does not have to be signed by the registered keeper. IT can be signed by their agent.

Firstly Section 172 of the road traffic act is the relevant part. This requires that the information be furnished. It does not force a conditional offer for a speeding offence to be signed by the keeper in order to satisfy the provisions of making the declaration.

There is a small body of opinion which does suggest that not signing it would make you guilty of failing to provide the details and a much wider body that takes the view that <i>your</i> signature is not required. Have sombody else fill it in and sign it as your agent.

(Unfortuantely on my original post I imistakenly included the word not when saying get somebody else to fill it in)

There is also a question over whether or not it breaces article 6(1) of the ECHR. This provides the right to slience as a suspect. This right is denied by forcing completion of the certificate.

Heres a link to a relevant case: http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/brown00.htm

I entirely agree that none of this is likely to help ones case - but the point I was making was to counter your assertion that it was mandatory to incriminate yourself. It is not.

[AtW]

There is a risky strategy available which involves having somebody else filling in the forrm on your behalf and not signing it. This satisfies the requirements for declaration but is strictly NOT admissiable as evidence in court because it is hearsay.

No - it does not work anymore -- there are plenty of court cases against motorists so you can be darn sure it won't work. If form is not signed then registered keeper will be done for not providing information in the first place, and get same punishment with different code, and that code is not liked by insurance companies at all.

New thing is PACE route where by you provide the information requested (so you clean as far as law required you to do it), but state clearly that since you were not cautioned it means that your information can't be used as evidence in court -- PACE's requirement. And there is a High Court case which states PACE applies, so this appears to be pretty good route -- Scameraships are known to quietly drop cases rather than go to court.

More info here - http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/index.php

[ASB]

There is no other example where the law requires to either admit you are guilty or get done for not admitting it!

Actually the law does nor require that. Although most people do.

What the law requires is a satisfactory declaration of who was driving the vehicle. It does not require that to be done in such a way as it is usable in evidence against you (although the standard form signed by the owner is admissable - no surprise there).

There is a risky strategy available which involves having somebody else filling in the forrm on your behalf and not signing it. This satisfies the requirements for declaration but is strictly NOT admissiable as evidence in court because it is hearsay.

[SupremeSpod]

'I've been stopped there, for being "the only car not speeding".

Didn't you see the "No Fat Feckers" sign then?

[AtW]

Fking bastards make people swet for 2 weeks before knowing if they get done or not -- should have had decency to have website where owners can type in their number plate and get info. EDS would do that only for a £1 bln.