Speed Cameras

[Rob S]

A defendant not testifying in their own trial is a different matter to making no comment whilst being interviewed during an investigation, and Judges do usually remind juries that nothing should be inferred by the fact the defendant has decided not to give evidence.

 

But in an age where those who are frequent visitors to police stations and the courts and know their rights inside out, do they really need the protection of a right to silence?

[patdavies]

 

This would apply to ALL criminal offences, because the arresting officer is required to say this caution verbatim during every arrest.

 

Not quite all. It should do, but there is normally no arrest for a speeding offence and no caution.

 

The problem with the NIP is that whilst the RTA S172 makes provision for information to be demanded under penalty of prosecution, the information is translated into a confession once the case is in court. PACE states generally that a confession without a caution is inadmissable in court.

 

Some police forces tried to get round this by printing the caution on the NIP. This failed because the S172 statement and the caution directly contradicted each other and in any case the person being cautioned must agree that they have understood it.

[patdavies]

 

But in an age where those who are frequent visitors to police stations and the courts and know their rights inside out, do they really need the protection of a right to silence?

 

Absolutely - it is for the accusers to make their case without demanding that the accused incriminate him/herself

[hagenuk]

Agreed and they must not be allowed to remove the safeguards that ensure they do this, we do not have Corpus Juris in this country - yet.

 

Piece by piece, Tony Blair's administration is removing the safeguards that protect all of us from the whims of a government and the intrusions of a powerful state. The government is engaged in a ferocious power-grab, yet this story has not seized the imagination of the media or the public. In our failure to respond, the government must be reading a tacit acceptance that it can do what it chooses, because we either don't notice or don't care. The government is briskly and fundamentally reshaping the relationship of the individual to the state and at the same time, of the Lords to the Commons and of MPs to ministers.

 

It is with increasing horror that I witness the destruction of the British traditions of liberty, free speech and freedom of thought. Just this year alone the Government have introduced limitations on free speech, the introduction of identity cards and the ban on smoking even on private premises. We have a government by a party that reinvented itself by being ashamed of its roots and determinedly betrayed the traditions and ideas of its founders. They may well have been right so to do, but they cannot be trusted to hold dear the traditions of others.

 

On the whim of the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellorship has been neutered, removing a voice of law from the cabinet. This government has repealed the law on double jeopardy. With ASBO's, it has sent individuals to prison on hearsay evidence for things that are not even criminal. It has created a centralised register held by the government on all citizens and proposes to force them to have ID cards. It has formed a police force with unprecedented powers of arrest - the Serious Organised Crime Agency - over which the Home Secretary has authority no predecessor has previously enjoyed.

 

Through its control orders, it has introduced a system of deprivation of liberty without trial on the say-so of the executive. It has passed the Civil Contingencies Act that allows a minister to override any statute after the calling of a state of emergency and now there is the Regulatory Reform Bill, which has been described as 'the abolition of parliament bill.' This gives gauleiter-like powers to ministers which we are blandly told will not be used. The government has decided to abolish habeas corpus, freedom from arrest, freedom from surveillance.

The ID cards bill will allow the authorities unprecedented surveillance of our lives, and the power to curtail our ordinary activities by withdrawing that card. The legislative and regulatory reform bill, now entering its final stages, will let ministers alter laws by order, rather than having to argue their case in parliament.

 

We are heading towards an elective dictatorship and indeed some would say it's already too late.

 

The RTA is the thin end of the wedge, how long before the rules are applied to other areas of law?

[meagain]

A defendant not testifying in their own trial is a different matter to making no comment whilst being interviewed during an investigation, and Judges do usually remind juries that nothing should be inferred by the fact the defendant has decided not to give evidence.

 

Normally, it would be a different matter, but in this case, where refusing to provide the information is in itself a criminal offence, it's not all that different. Last time I checked, failing to identify a murder suspect was not an offence, so why should it be so for the somewhat minor issue of doing 33 in a 30? It is nothing short of an affront to justice that you can be convicted of an offence on this basis. "We can't build an adequate case against X, we could have done if X admitted to it, so we'll prosecute them anyway." So much for a presumption of innocence. It's like the TV Licensing people, who insist that because 98% of households have a TV and you don't have a licence, you're a criminal if you don't accede to their demands for information and/or payment.

[Movingon]

Last time I checked, failing to identify a murder suspect was not an offence...

 

Actually, depending upon the exact circumstances involved, you can be charged as an accessory if you knowingly fail to divulge evidence which could convict a murderer. I take nothing from your argument about RTA speeding offences but felt it was important to say this.

[meagain]

Yes, but it's slightly different. If you are charged as an accessory to murder, they have to prove all the various connections - connecting you to the murder via the accused killer (if you didn't identify them, they first have to convict the murderer, otherwise there's no basis for the charge), establishing that you definitely must have known the relevant information, and that you withheld it for more sinister reasons than "I didn't think it was relevant at the time". Of course, if they can make some of the connections, they might get you on obstruction or PCJ, so I take your point.

 

With S172 RTA, they have to prove that they served up a valid NIP, and you didn't provide the information that was asked, and there's your successful conviction.

[JonCris]

Agreed and they must not be allowed to remove the safeguards that ensure they do this, we do not have Corpus Juris in this country - yet.

 

Piece by piece, Tony Blair's administration is removing the safeguards that protect all of us from the whims of a government and the intrusions of a powerful state. The government is engaged in a ferocious power-grab, yet this story has not seized the imagination of the media or the public. In our failure to respond, the government must be reading a tacit acceptance that it can do what it chooses, because we either don't notice or don't care. The government is briskly and fundamentally reshaping the relationship of the individual to the state and at the same time, of the Lords to the Commons and of MPs to ministers.

 

It is with increasing horror that I witness the destruction of the British traditions of liberty, free speech and freedom of thought. Just this year alone the Government have introduced limitations on free speech, the introduction of identity cards and the ban on smoking even on private premises. We have a government by a party that reinvented itself by being ashamed of its roots and determinedly betrayed the traditions and ideas of its founders. They may well have been right so to do, but they cannot be trusted to hold dear the traditions of others.

 

On the whim of the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellorship has been neutered, removing a voice of law from the cabinet. This government has repealed the law on double jeopardy. With ASBO's, it has sent individuals to prison on hearsay evidence for things that are not even criminal. It has created a centralised register held by the government on all citizens and proposes to force them to have ID cards. It has formed a police force with unprecedented powers of arrest - the Serious Organised Crime Agency - over which the Home Secretary has authority no predecessor has previously enjoyed.

 

Through its control orders, it has introduced a system of deprivation of liberty without trial on the say-so of the executive. It has passed the Civil Contingencies Act that allows a minister to override any statute after the calling of a state of emergency and now there is the Regulatory Reform Bill, which has been described as 'the abolition of parliament bill.' This gives gauleiter-like powers to ministers which we are blandly told will not be used. The government has decided to abolish habeas corpus, freedom from arrest, freedom from surveillance.

The ID cards bill will allow the authorities unprecedented surveillance of our lives, and the power to curtail our ordinary activities by withdrawing that card. The legislative and regulatory reform bill, now entering its final stages, will let ministers alter laws by order, rather than having to argue their case in parliament.

 

We are heading towards an elective dictatorship and indeed some would say it's already too late.

 

The RTA is the thin end of the wedge, how long before the rules are applied to other areas of law?

 

I agree & there does not appear to be any opposition to them whatsoever

[meagain]

Of course there's opposition. It just gets "silenced".

[JonCris]

I meant in Parlaiment

[JonCris]

Not quite all. It should do, but there is normally no arrest for a speeding offence and no caution.

 

The problem with the NIP is that whilst the RTA S172 makes provision for information to be demanded under penalty of prosecution, the information is translated into a confession once the case is in court. PACE states generally that a confession without a caution is inadmissable in court.

 

Some police forces tried to get round this by printing the caution on the NIP. This failed because the S172 statement and the caution directly contradicted each other and in any case the person being cautioned must agree that they have understood it.

 

Theres a big difference between being caught by a speed camera & being stopped by a police officer. A police officer will caution you (verbal NIP) at the time meaning there will be no further need to contact you other than send you a summons to attend court. However & assuming your particulars are correct the matter must be dealt with within 6 months otherwise it's "out of time" unless Tones taken that safeguard away also

[Rob S]

Absolutely - it is for the accusers to make their case without demanding that the accused incriminate him/herself

 

Self incrimination is a very different issue to the right to silence. Asking someone to confess in the absense of other evidence is not the same as trying to establish the whereabouts of someone at the time of an incident and then getting a "no comment" response. The right to silence was initially introduced within the UK to protect those who could neither read nor write. In an age where it is rare that a person can do neither, it has reached the stage where the right to silence is routinely abused by serial offenders, often aided and abetted by their solicitors.

[JonCris]

yeah be great if they just all confessed.........even if they didn't do it.

 

The right to silence was introduced to stop the state threatening the individual with penalties if they didn't confess. (if you don't tell us we are going to jail you anyway) It has never had anything to do with an inability of the accused to read & write.

 

All solicitors are rubbish..until you need one then they become the newest best friend.

[meagain]

(if you don't tell us we are going to jail you anyway)

 

... which is precisely what S172 provides for. "Tell us who was driving this car, or we'll punish you anyway."

 

The usual argument put forward to defend S172 is that without it, people would just say "wasn't me, sir" and the police would never get anyone for speeding again. I say that's their problem. Anyway, it would free them up to do proper police work, such as shooting terror suspects, and letting serial rapists walk free.

[rickardo]

rather than start a new thread..thought I'd ask you guys..back in oct my son was involved in a not serious bump caused by his driving slightly too fast on ice..two months later he gets a recorded letter (which he had to pay the postage on!!) telling him to either cough up £200 for a driving course or be prosecuted for careless driving!..now do the N.I.P. rules apply?..any advice on this would be hugely appreciated..cheers rickardo

[Rob S]

He should have been given a NIP no later than 14 days after the offence, unless police turned up at the scene and gave him a verbal NIP.

[Aequitas]

Agreed and they must not be allowed to remove the safeguards that ensure they do this, we do not have Corpus Juris in this country - yet.

 

Piece by piece, Tony Blair's administration is removing the safeguards that protect all of us from the whims of a government and the intrusions of a powerful state. The government is engaged in a ferocious power-grab, yet this story has not seized the imagination of the media or the public. In our failure to respond, the government must be reading a tacit acceptance that it can do what it chooses, because we either don't notice or don't care. The government is briskly and fundamentally reshaping the relationship of the individual to the state and at the same time, of the Lords to the Commons and of MPs to ministers.

 

It is with increasing horror that I witness the destruction of the British traditions of liberty, free speech and freedom of thought. Just this year alone the Government have introduced limitations on free speech, the introduction of identity cards and the ban on smoking even on private premises. We have a government by a party that reinvented itself by being ashamed of its roots and determinedly betrayed the traditions and ideas of its founders. They may well have been right so to do, but they cannot be trusted to hold dear the traditions of others.

 

On the whim of the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellorship has been neutered, removing a voice of law from the cabinet. This government has repealed the law on double jeopardy. With ASBO's, it has sent individuals to prison on hearsay evidence for things that are not even criminal. It has created a centralised register held by the government on all citizens and proposes to force them to have ID cards. It has formed a police force with unprecedented powers of arrest - the Serious Organised Crime Agency - over which the Home Secretary has authority no predecessor has previously enjoyed.

 

Through its control orders, it has introduced a system of deprivation of liberty without trial on the say-so of the executive. It has passed the Civil Contingencies Act that allows a minister to override any statute after the calling of a state of emergency and now there is the Regulatory Reform Bill, which has been described as 'the abolition of parliament bill.' This gives gauleiter-like powers to ministers which we are blandly told will not be used. The government has decided to abolish habeas corpus, freedom from arrest, freedom from surveillance.

 

The ID cards bill will allow the authorities unprecedented surveillance of our lives, and the power to curtail our ordinary activities by withdrawing that card. The legislative and regulatory reform bill, now entering its final stages, will let ministers alter laws by order, rather than having to argue their case in parliament.

 

We are heading towards an elective dictatorship and indeed some would say it's already too late.

 

The RTA is the thin end of the wedge, how long before the rules are applied to other areas of law?

 

Do you really believe all this lot of toot?

[JonCris]

rather than start a new thread..thought I'd ask you guys..back in oct my son was involved in a not serious bump caused by his driving slightly too fast on ice..two months later he gets a recorded letter (which he had to pay the postage on!!) telling him to either cough up £200 for a driving course or be prosecuted for careless driving!..now do the N.I.P. rules apply?..any advice on this would be hugely appreciated..cheers rickardo

 

If he was cautioned by a police officer at the time the written NIP rules don't apply. If he refuses the driving course the 'evidence' of his careless driving will/should be put before the court within the 6 month deadline & a summons issued otherwise the charges should be dropped

[rickardo]

:)cheers for that Rob S,and JonChris.

[Linzi86]

My friend has just told me that she went through average speed cameras at 70mph and the limit was 40mph. She didnt realise they were there. Will she get one fine or a fine for each camera she went through???

[zither]

I think you get one for each of the cameras you pass at an excessive speed but hopefully I`am proved wrong by someone!.

[Linzi86]

Oh dear, not god for her then as she went through all the cameras at the same speed as she did not realise they were there. Would she lose her licence?

[zither]

oo eck I wouldnt think so. Iam only going on a similar experience with someone I know.

[Linzi86]

I hope she doesnt. If its each camera, she has lost it cos there is 4 cameras i think.

[borisbeaver]

If her average speed exceeded the speed limit when she exited the camera zone, then each one is an offence with a minimum of 3 points each. Do 4 on a clean licence then say bye-bye to licence.