Idris' case will have massive implications for the speed camera industry. It will throw the onus on the Police having to prove their case and not simply rely on intimidating the Registered Keeper with the threat of fines and imprisonment.
Perhaps we will then get back to the proper policing of our roads with more vehicles being stopped for speeding rather than the remote policing cash-cow we have at the moment.
Speeding laws face human rights test
By Joshua Rozenberg,
Legal Editor(Filed: 04/09/2006)
Motorists' rights are being infringed by anti-speeding laws, senior human rights judges will be told at a hearing this month.The European Court in Strasbourg will examine section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which requires the registered keeper of a vehicle to say who was driving at the time it was caught by a speed camera.
If the challenge is successful, it could punch a major hole in laws that raise millions of pounds in fines every year.
The court will be told that a vintage Alvis belonging to Idris Francis, 66, a retired company director from West Meon, Hants, was photographed being driven at 47mph in a 30mph area of Surrey in June 2001.
Francis refused to say who was driving the car and was fined £750 with £250 costs and three penalty points.The judges will also consider the case of Gerard O'Halloran, 72, from London, who admitted driving a car seen travelling at 69mph on the M11 in Essex where a temporary speed limit was 40mph.
He later tried to have his confession excluded but was fined £100 for speeding with £150 costs and six penalty points.Francis complains that being compelled to provide evidence of the offence he was suspected of having committed infringed his right not to incriminate himself.O'Halloran complains that he was convicted because of a statement he made under threat of a penalty similar to that for the speeding offence.
Both men claim there has been a breach of the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence under Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.
The two motorists are being represented by the human rights organisation
Liberty.law@telegraph.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(392)
-
▼
September
(38)
- Herron and Segal on TalkSPORT tonight
- NPAS Hearing to go ahead
- NPAS Hearing getting closer ...
- Michael Watson FOI request Sunderland City Council
- Ticket Date Row
- London Borough of Barnet v The Parking Adjudicator
- BBC Whistleblower Bailiff's Programme
- Drivers challenge spy camera law
- QC instructed for NPAS hearing
- Driver's £18,500 bill for ignoring parking fines
- National Parking Adjudication Service refuse an Ad...
- Time for David to slay Goliath again
- Another headline...another case of injustice
- Manchester Parking News
- Barnet Judicial PCN Review
- Doormat ban...at what point are people going to sa...
- Clacton on Sea? Non compliant parking tickets to c...
- Another nail in Sunderland Council's Parking Coffin
- Westminster Parking Enforcement 'suspended.'
- 'Campaigner claims another victory.'
- Manchester City Council - DPE Questions
- Parking Tickets on Radio 4's You and Yours
- Hundreds of millions to be written off in parking ...
- Sam Stockman beats Havering Council
- Parking News
- Suspended court staff charged with fraud
- Bury Council's Groundhog Day...another Parking fiasco
- Torbay Council ... another council putting its han...
- Oldham MBC - DPE Questions and FOI Request
- Speeding Test Case could see massive loss of reven...
- Oldham Parking Ticket Amnesty imminent
- Greater Manchester Parking Meltdown
- Liverpool to appeal Barnet JR Ruling
- Don't know your East from your West? That'll be £5...
- Driver's anger at spy cars
- EU membership costs every Briton £873 a year
- Liverpool City Council's Unlawful Parking Tickets
- Cleveland Speeding Cases...Thousands of Miscarriag...
-
▼
September
(38)
2 comments:
I wonder whether, if successful, this will be retrospective. I have a vested interest having just been caught doing 70 in a 50 and paying the penalty. The annoying thing in my case was the fact that I had just passed through a fixed camera site which was well advertised and I knew was there. However a 1/4 of a mile further on was a mobile unit obviously set up to catch those of us who put our foot down after the fixed site. It is a good road being a dual carriageway with a large central reservation, so large in fact that the mobile unit was parked on the central reservation, the weather was clear and sunny and the traffic light. This was quite clearly a money making exercise.
Re Anonymous' ticket from a Mobile Unit: The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) guidance notes do, I believe, specifically forbid the use of radar equipment, at least, from vehicles parked on the central reservation of dual carriage ways.
It's worth asking at this stage for full details of the equipment used, and if it was a laser device, it is not supposed to be used through front or rear screens. The training manuals specify that they are supposed to be hand-held by the side of the road by officers on foot..
If you want to run this you can ask for the equipment's log book as well as the operator's note books. You can also ask for the technical manuals which specify how and in what circumstances the equipment can be deployed. The equipment MUST be calibrated using a second police vehicle at least at the beginning of the tour of duty and possibly at each site where it is used during the day. The operators hardly ever calibrate these devices on a regular basis as it's too time consuming and require a second police vehicle.
Hope this helps.
Post a Comment