Justice is served!

Post by ed » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:15 pm

Click Here

£3000

Ouch!

mckeann · Post by **mckeann** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:41 pm

unfair conviction

jj · Post by jj » Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:26 pm

Was this the guy caught a while ago - had been arguing with his girlfriend and was giving it 150plus to get to Dundee to see her?

If so, the judge should have let him off on the grounds that doing 156mph to go get your Nat King Cole is perfectly acceptable thing for a man to do when the Pot Noodle horn calls.....

The_Rossatron · Post by **The_Rossatron** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:50 pm

I would have thought he would have gotten jail time for doing that speed!

Post by ed » Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:51 pm

Ive got no problem if your only putting yourself in danger but that speed on the phone is quite simply insane! That can be a very busy road, especially in the afternoon. I think he should have taken the rap like a man and not tried to squirm out of it.

Post by **simon** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:17 pm

It does worry me though that you can now be prosecuted for something without any evidence or without the police actually following the required procedures.

kenny · Post by **kenny** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:43 pm

simon wrote:It does worry me though that you can now be prosecuted for something without any evidence or without the police actually following the required procedures.

Agree with that, heard of a few lax procedures recently.

Stephen · Post by **Stephen** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:42 pm

Knowing of a few folk who "sell" their tickets to maintain a clean driving license I am dead against cameras. I got a ticket a few years ago and when I called up th obtain a copy of the photo to ensure I sent the correct license (shared driving) I was told the photo would not show the driver as it was taken from the rear so just pick one and send us £40. How can that be justice??
Under the current system anyone who is prepared to pay can get as many tickets as they like money is the prime issue for the authorities

GilesM · Post by **GilesM** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:33 am

This is a bit strange, I thought in his original trial that they couldn't identify him clearly from the video, (it was a front facing mobile camera) in which case he should have got off on the right to silence arguement, in brief the privy council decided in a previous case (Stott-v-Brown) relating to drink driving that your human rights were not impacted and evidence from a forced confession could be used as the case was in the public interest and it was a public safety issue, but they also added that this was okay as the penalty was low, and by low they actually said, non custodial and/or a fine of less than £1000, as the privy council decided this, it applies to all courts in Scotland. If he couldn't be identified from the video and he still got convicted then his solicitor must have been sh!te.

Giles
PS. It was a wee bit quick for a phone call though.

GregR · Post by **GregR** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:41 am

AFAIK, nowt to do with the 'right to silence' thing - there's a provision in the RTA 1988 stating its an offence NOT to say who was driving at the material time, that was held not to be a breach of the protection against self incrimination following ratification of the ECHR in the Human Rights Act 1998.

I think

GilesM · Post by **GilesM** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:33 pm

AFAIK, nowt to do with the 'right to silence' thing - there's a provision in the RTA 1988 stating its an offence NOT to say who was driving at the material time, that was held not to be a breach of the protection against self incrimination following ratification of the ECHR in the Human Rights Act 1998.

It is quite alot to do with the Right to Silence, the European Human Rights act clearly states that you have the right to silence and evidence obtained under duress cannot be used in a court against you, pretty basic safe guards of our legal rights really. Unfortunately the Road Traffic Act 1988 section 172 (how sad am I) requires the registered keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver at the time of an alleged offence (normally that alleged offence is passing a speed camera above the speed limit) or face prosecution for not identifying the driver. The threat of prosecution is enough to mean that the information is obtained under duress, hence the reason why it was challenged a few years ago and why the Privy council ended up making a decision.
As the Privy council decided it was okay to be forced to confess if the penalty was low, (less than £1000 and no cahnce of prison) then the guy in this case should not have been convicted unless he could clearly be identified from the speed camera video.

The more interesting point is that there are currently about 8 cases that are being judged by the European Court of Human Rights concerning speed camera convictions and the right to silence.

Giles (ever optimistic faction)

GregR · Post by **GregR** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:11 pm

lol. I concede to someone obviously far more knowledgable on the subject!!

You available to contest this coming year's driving licenve points tally for me Giles?

Post by **Shug** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:17 pm

http://www.pepipoo.com taught him everything he knows

Oh, and he's got the sheer bloody-mindedness and concentration to use the info on there properly... Suppose that's got summit to do with it!!!

GilesM · Post by **GilesM** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:48 pm

lol. I concede to someone obviously far more knowledgable on the subject!!

You available to contest this coming year's driving licenve points tally for me Giles?

As Shug mentioned, too much time on pepipoo.com as a result of an NIP that came through my door, I learnt alot, got my case and a colleagues dropped and made a few useful contacts, one such contact has his Right to Silence case at the ECHR at the moment, he is being assisted legally by Liberty, should get the verdict by the end of March, these wheels turn very slowly. It really does take a lot of time, some thought, and occasionally a bit of bottle to fight these cases, but it's worth it when you get the little "No Further Action" letter.

Not every case can be won, but it's always worth ago.

Giles

Post by **Shug** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:41 pm

Right on brother!