Speed Cameras and your right to silence
Discussion
The ABD are running a fighting fund to defend our right to silence in respect of speed cameras. As speeding is about the only thing you can be convicted for without any proof being provided. It is well worth a donation. It will not mean the end of speed cameras just yet but victory will perhaps force the Government to decriminalise speedig and that will mean the end of penalty points. Just click on the ABD banner and follow the links to "fighting fund".
Cheers
quote:
Do you have to KNOW that you are speeding to be guilty ? I take it not..
This should be changed IMHO cause lately when I have been driving in areas I do not know I have had little/no idea what the speed limit is, the only sign posts where Speed Camera ones.
Well I guess Ignorance is no defense would sort that one out. I understand what you are trying to say but to attempt what you propose would require a fundamental cahnge in the law of equal magnitude but opposite direction to the right to silence issue. If it were to happen murderers and rapists would be able to use ignorance as a defense so I think it is unlikely to happen.
The point is that you can currently be convicted on a charge of not confessing which is I believe unique in the British legal system. The reason given for overturning your right to silence is that it is in the public interest that you should confess.
Basically this means that the void stats on speed cameras are being used as a justification for overturning the right to silence. Clearly the evidence is flawed and probably the real proof is to the contrary. As a result it is really indefensible. What the ABD are trying to do is support this one case in order for us all to benefit from it.
Please look at the website www.abd.org.uk and follow the link they have explained it all in some depth.
Yes I understand the point you are making about murder but in law Mens Rea can be applied to each crime i.e. the Difference between Murder and Manslaughter is 'Malice Aforethought' or the intent to kill and as such you can only be convicted or murder if the prosecution can prove this Mens Rea.. 
What I meant was get the Law on Speeding changed so that you must be intending to speed to be guilty.
You are quite correct in that the right to silence is a fundamental right in this country and the Govt have taken that away for (and only for) the heinous crime of driving 5mph faster than some
has deemed it 'safe' to do so.
Is there no one else on this forum who has a view on this subject ?
What I meant was get the Law on Speeding changed so that you must be intending to speed to be guilty.
You are quite correct in that the right to silence is a fundamental right in this country and the Govt have taken that away for (and only for) the heinous crime of driving 5mph faster than some
has deemed it 'safe' to do so. Is there no one else on this forum who has a view on this subject ?
quote:
Interesting reading on that site!
Has anyone tried succesfully to beat the points using this defence recently? The only ones I could see on there were from Feb 2001 and I imagine JP's are taking a dim view of this now.
Matt.
I don't know about now but I got away with 120 on the motorway in August 2000 by refusing to supply info requested. Got a couple of real snotty intimidating letters to urge me to confess. The defense was ruled out by Privvy councilors sometime in FEB I think (what do they know). Hopefully the ECHR will squash this corrupt nonsense.
Top blokes for the funds. I kicked in 20 quid so far maybe I will make this a monthly contribution.
Cheers
You haven't got a prayer with ECHR, because under the right to life, article 2 ECHR, the government, the old bill etc have got a duty to protect life. In this case if we could all drive as we liked without ever getting done for it, the number of people ending up brown bread on the frog and toads would go up ten fold. As the right to life is the fundamental and over-riding part of ECHR you won't beat it.
Alternatives are getting a faster car than the cops, not registering the car to yourself or getting duff plates. However get caught doing these and you'll br praying you only get three points, as opposed to a day at Crown Court.
Alternatives are getting a faster car than the cops, not registering the car to yourself or getting duff plates. However get caught doing these and you'll br praying you only get three points, as opposed to a day at Crown Court.
quote:Yeah - all well and good, but the right not to incriminate oneself is in there too..
You haven't got a prayer with ECHR, because under the right to life, article 2 ECHR, the government, the old bill etc have got a duty to protect life
In the US there are no speed cameras because of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution which is prettry much the same as the right not to incriminate yourself in the ECHR.
My view is that (1) If we don't try we'll never know and (2) If the USA can take a sensible stance on it, with their track record as practically the most opressive democracy in the western world, then there's no reason why we shouldn't have the same.
Oh and finally, I consider my 50 quid to have gone to a 'good cause' which is more than 50 quid to GreenPeace is..
Top man CarZee.
The old bill have right to protect life sounds as though speeding had something to do with accidents which of course is rubbish.
More than half the deaths are due to pedestrians being at fault due to being small children, drunk or just plain stupid. The other half of the deaths fall into numerous categories with about one percent down to speed.
If the ECHR use this need to preserve life as a justification for overiding the right to silence then every politician in the country will have to be arrested for negligence. Along with every local authority planner and road designer and a hell of a lot of acrchitects as well. An additional offense of drinking and being a pedestrian would have to be aproved and roadside parking would need to be illegal everywhere. In fact speed cameras could be sited as a distraction to concentration as would traffic lights and the whole lot would have to be re thought.
Edited by nonegreen on Wednesday 16th January 16:42
The old bill have right to protect life sounds as though speeding had something to do with accidents which of course is rubbish.
More than half the deaths are due to pedestrians being at fault due to being small children, drunk or just plain stupid. The other half of the deaths fall into numerous categories with about one percent down to speed.
If the ECHR use this need to preserve life as a justification for overiding the right to silence then every politician in the country will have to be arrested for negligence. Along with every local authority planner and road designer and a hell of a lot of acrchitects as well. An additional offense of drinking and being a pedestrian would have to be aproved and roadside parking would need to be illegal everywhere. In fact speed cameras could be sited as a distraction to concentration as would traffic lights and the whole lot would have to be re thought.
Edited by nonegreen on Wednesday 16th January 16:42
howabout making it mandatory to supply information if an ACCIDENT happens, but make Plod prove who it was it was just 'mere' speeding.
Not sure how this would work, but it's stupid them claiming that "safety is the heart of the issue".
Afterall, you don't have to prove you weren't there for every murder/theft in your town, so why the need to prove who was driving a particular car?
There ought to be a national day of protest where every road user takes the plates off. That'll sort it.
Not sure how this would work, but it's stupid them claiming that "safety is the heart of the issue".
Afterall, you don't have to prove you weren't there for every murder/theft in your town, so why the need to prove who was driving a particular car?
There ought to be a national day of protest where every road user takes the plates off. That'll sort it.
quote:
howabout making it mandatory to supply information if an ACCIDENT happens, but make Plod prove who it was it was just 'mere' speeding.
Not sure how this would work, but it's stupid them claiming that "safety is the heart of the issue".
Afterall, you don't have to prove you weren't there for every murder/theft in your town, so why the need to prove who was driving a particular car?
There ought to be a national day of protest where every road user takes the plates off. That'll sort it.
yep top man! i'm in
quote:Me too.. and FWIW, on the M3 doing the morning commute, I reckon 40-50% of cars' rear plates are completely illegible owing to winter motorway muck which for some reason they've not washed off .. oh and I've noticed that the rest of the car is usually clean..quote:yep top man! i'm in
There ought to be a national day of protest where every road user takes the plates off. That'll sort it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff