Anpr

[danny_kiernan]

Hi All,

 

I get asked a lot of questions about ANPR by clients - this is the number plate recognition system used by a lot of police forces in the UK.

 

Basically what happens is a police car is cruising along and the camera inside is checking all the number plates it sees, against a shared database between the police and the DVLA.

 

If there is an irregularity, a warning comes up in the police car and they follow you and start flashing the lights.

 

What do you do now - OK heres a step by step guide, firstly the do nots:

 

1) DO NOT RUN - if you speed off, you end up in a police chase, which will probably end up on tv, plus you will commit offences - at this point you have not committed an offence.

 

2) DON'T GET ANGRY - you will probably be wound up, that the police have stopped you, you may be late for work or an appointment - but calmness is the best thing.

 

3) DO NOT ADMIT TO ANY OFFENCE - as soon as you do that you are in big trouble, whether it be an expired tax disk, no insurance, no licence or a disqualification.

 

Now the Dos:

 

1) Exit the car straightaway, in as safe a manner as you can (on the hard shoulder of a motorway it can be a bit intimidating), then the police officer will have no chance of arresting you for no seatbelt. If the police drew alongside you before flashing the lights, you just have to be done for no seatbelt. If you are on a motorway or clearway (note: the police should not stop you on a clearway, it is very dangerous), exit the drivers door when you feel safe to exit, then go around the car to the hard shoulder (you will be safer there).

 

2) Politely ask the officer, why he/she has stopped you, if its for a broken light or something else visible, then you are stuck with that, just reassure the officer you will deal with that shortly, don't lie and say you were on the way to sort it out. You are sunk at this point, unless they stopped you because of ANPR, rather than the physical problem, read on...

 

3) If their is nothing physically wrong with your car, the police are in breach of the human rights act article 8 - right to privacy, you should inform them of that in a calm collected manner.

 

In most cases the police will now let you go. However in some cases they will carry on and arrest you (which is an unlawful arrest) unless there is a physical defect on the car, in this case follow these guidelines:

 

1) DO NOT SAY ANYTHING - not to the officers who arrested you, or any officers hanging around the police station, even if they try to engage you in conversation.

 

2) DO GIVE YOUR DETAILS - to the custody officer, all you need to give is your name and address and date of birth, nothing more.

 

3) RING A SOLICITOR - the custody officer will give you, your rights in custody. To ring a solicitor, have someone informed of your arrest and to consult the codes of practice. If you don't have a solicitor, the custody officer will advise you that there is a duty solicitor, DO NOT take that option, use your phone call to have someone informed to find a reputable solicitor, or ask the duty seargeant nicely if you can look up a solicitor in the yellow pages (they may or may not let you do this). Duty Solicitors can be in the police's pocket so to speak, this does not apply to all duty solicitors.

 

3a) Explain the situation to your solicitor, that the police arrested you via ANPR and they have breached your human rights doing that. Any good solicitor will send someone out immediately to you and you will be released, but do not drive straightaway as another copper can arrest you as you are 'Known to them'.

 

3b) Should you get a bad solicitor, or eek the duty solicitor, just stay silent, no matter what the police say to you, then file for breach of human rights and unlawful detention in your local county court after you get released, plus get the advice of a good solicitor.

 

I hope that all makes sense, if you have any questions - please message me, btw I am not advocating breaking the law, but the police are breaking the law with ANPR

 

Danny

[danny_kiernan]

Just as a reminder - I am not Advocating breaking the law in any way, just giving a step-by-step guide to dealing with the police, when stopped via ANPR.

 

If you have done something wrong, I leave that to your conscience to deal with.

 

Danny

[Rob S]

 

1) Exit the car straightaway, in as safe a manner as you can (on the hard shoulder of a motorway it can be a bit intimidating), then the police officer will have no chance of arresting you for no seatbelt.

 

 

If a police officer has already observed the person not wearing a seat belt they can still issue a FPN for this offence, even if the driver swiftly gets out of the vehicle as you suggest.

 

2) Politely ask the officer, why he/she has stopped you, if its for a broken light or something else visible, then you are stuck with that, just reassure the officer you will deal with that shortly, don't lie and say you were on the way to sort it out. You are sunk at this point, unless they stopped you because of ANPR, rather than the physical problem, read on...

 

Correct, it is always best to be polite.

 

3) If their is nothing physically wrong with your car, the police are in breach of the human rights act article 8 - right to privacy, you should inform them of that in a calm collected manner.

 

Sections 163 to 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 give police powers to stop a vehicle under certain circumstances, and this would not breach the right to privacy as you suggest. Police would be using these powers to stop a vehicle.

 

 

In most cases the police will now let you go. However in some cases they will carry on and arrest you (which is an unlawful arrest), in this case follow these guidelines:

 

Sorry, but this is very bad advice. How on earth can you say an arrest is unlawful without specifying any circumstances whatsoever? This is just nonsense.

 

1) DO NOT SAY ANYTHING - not to the officers who arrested you, or any officers hanging around the police station, even if they try to engage you in conversation.

 

2) DO GIVE YOUR DETAILS - to the custody officer, all you need to give is your name and address, nothing more.

 

Generally correct though I would add to furnish the custody officer with your date of birth as well.

 

3) RING A SOLICITOR - the custody officer will give you, your rights in custody. To ring a solicitor, have someone informed of your arrest and to consult the codes of practice. If you don't have a solicitor, the custody officer will advise you that there is a duty solicitor, DO NOT take that option, use your phone call to a friend to find a reputable solicitor. Duty Solicitors are in the police's pocket so to speak.

3a) Explain the situation to your solicitor, that the police arrested you via ANPR and they have breached your human rights doing that. Any good solicitor will send someone out immediately to you and you will be released, but do not drive straightaway as another copper can arrest you as you are 'Known to them'.

 

The person has a right to have someone informed of their arrest, there is no automatic right to actually make a phone call. As for the advice in 3a) it is just laughable. You are suggesting that a person will be released regardless which without being specific is nonsense. Also to suggest that you could be arrested again as you are "known to them" is laughable. If you have been released from police custody, then there is nothing to stop you from driving again, assuming that you are licenced to drive, have a car that is roadworthy and insured and you are not over the drink/drive limit.

 

 

3b) Should you get a bad solicitor, or eek the duty solicitor, just stay quiet, no matter what the police say to you, then file for breach of human rights and unlawful detention in your local county court after you get released, plus get the advice of a good solicitor.

 

I hope that all makes sense, if you have any questions - please message me, btw I am not advocating breaking the law, but the police are breaking the law with ANPR

 

Danny

 

Danny, your advice is dangerous because you are talking generally. ANPR is a tool used by police to identify vehicles of interest to them, it does not lead to automatic arrest of the driver or other occupants as you seem to be suggesting.

 

And perhaps you could explain just how the police are breaking the law by using ANPR?

[kregrs]

I'm intriqued to know what it is that Danny does for a living?

[danny_kiernan]

Hi Rob,

 

I can quite happily answer these questions you have brought up. As before I do not advocate breaking the law (even though I despise certain laws).

If a police officer has already observed the person not wearing a seat belt they can still issue a FPN for this offence, even if the driver swiftly gets out of the vehicle as you suggest.

No that is not the case, unless you have eagle-eyes, which case the driver can get off a penalty, however if you stop and are not wearing a seatbelt, then it is obviously a case of not wearing a seatbelt.

 

Sections 163 to 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 give police powers to stop a vehicle under certain circumstances, and this would not breach the right to privacy as you suggest. Police would be using these powers to stop a vehicle.

Terribly sorry, but they don't if you had read the entire road traffic act, the police are only allowed to stop you for a suspected offence. ANPR breaches human rights, so therefore any police stopping you due to an ANPR check, becomes a breach of human rights.

 

As to Section 165, due to human rights - you do not have to name the driver, there have been 3 cases so far which have won on these grounds.

 

2 of them, you need to belong to the law society to look up on the internet, but one I have found a public link for: MARGARET ANDERSON BROWN v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, DUNFERMLINE, 04 February 2000, Lord Allanbridge+Lord Justice General+Lord Marnoch

 

 

Sorry, but this is very bad advice. How on earth can you say an arrest is unlawful without specifying any circumstances whatsoever? This is just nonsense.

An unlawful arrest is only unlawful, once it is carried out. If you state their arrest is unlawful and why, the police will generally look for another way to arrest you as you and the vehicle are there in plain sight. I take it you have never been arrested?

 

 

Generally correct though I would add to furnish the custody officer with your date of birth as well.

 

Oops, yes I forgot about date of birth, nothing more though.

The person has a right to have someone informed of their arrest, there is no automatic right to actually make a phone call. As for the advice in 3a) it is just laughable. You are suggesting that a person will be released regardless which without being specific is nonsense. Also to suggest that you could be arrested again as you are "known to them" is laughable. If you have been released from police custody, then there is nothing to stop you from driving again, assuming that you are licenced to drive, have a car that is roadworthy and insured and you are not over the drink/drive limit.

I assume you are unfamiliar with PACE then, you are entitled to have a person advised of your arrest, and yes you are allowed to call them except: If the police suspect you are trying to conceal evidence, which 99% of the time they won't with a traffic offence.

 

Being known to them is not laughable, I have had clients and friends released by the police, only to be charged minutes later as they could not get them on the previous charge, so they watched and waited.

 

Danny, your advice is dangerous because you are talking generally. ANPR is a tool used by police to identify vehicles of interest to them, it does not lead to automatic arrest of the driver or other occupants as you seem to be suggesting.

I hate to disagree, but my advice is not dangerous. You say it is a tool, however it comes under the same blanket law as 'tools' used to monitor your phone line, which can only be used after a judge has allowed it.

ANPR is an invasion of privacy and no-one should stand for it.

 

Personally, I have been through this situation twice and have beaten the cops both times, by using my advice before, thats why I wished to share it.

And perhaps you could explain just how the police are breaking the law by using ANPR?

 

Sure, but perhaps you would prefer more concrete evidence than me just saying so, so heres some links:

Spy Blog: ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) Data Retention guidance by ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers)

 

Scotsman.com News - Number plate cameras may be illegal

 

Hope thats enough to satisfy you, or I can talk twaddle about litigation and human rights for hours.

 

Cheers

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

I'm intriqued to know what it is that Danny does for a living?

 

I fight the law, for what I do for income I won't say as that would be self-promotion, plus it's intrigued not intriqued.

 

Dani

[Rob S]

Hi Rob,

 

I can quite happily answer these questions you have brought up. As before I do not advocate breaking the law (even though I despise certain laws).

 

No that is not the case, unless you have eagle-eyes, which case the driver can get off a penalty, however if you stop and are not wearing a seatbelt, then it is obviously a case of not wearing a seatbelt.

 

You are so wrong on this one Danny. If an officer sees someone not wearing their seatbelt and stops them, it won't be enough for the driver to get out of the car quickly to avoid the issue.

 

 

Terribly sorry, but they don't if you had read the entire road traffic act, the police are only allowed to stop you for a suspected offence. ANPR breaches human rights, so therefore any police stopping you due to an ANPR check, becomes a breach of human rights.

 

I suggest you re-read the Road Traffic Act. Police do not have to suspect you of an offence to be able to stop you, they can stop a vehicle just for the purpose of checking the driver is licenced, the car is insured and the vehicle has a valid MOT (if required). ANPR is a tool used by the police and if a car flashes up on it then they will use their RTA powers to stop the vehicle. It would not be a breach of human rights.

 

As to Section 165, due to human rights - you do not have to name the driver, there have been 3 cases so far which have won on these grounds.

 

2 of them, you need to belong to the law society to look up on the internet, but one I have found a public link for: MARGARET ANDERSON BROWN v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, DUNFERMLINE, 04 February 2000, Lord Allanbridge+Lord Justice General+Lord Marnoch

 

This case went to the Privy Council and the ruling was overturned, so you are wrong again.

 

I assume you are unfamiliar with PACE then, you are entitled to have a person advised of your arrest, and yes you are allowed to call them except: If the police suspect you are trying to conceal evidence, which 99% of the time they won't with a traffic offence.

 

The police will often let someone make the call, but it is a courtesy which they do not have to extend to the detained person. If you read the Pace codes of practice it is quite clear in the "allowing someone to be informed of your arrest and detention" or words to that effect.

 

Being known to them is not laughable, I have had clients and friends released by the police, only to be charged minutes later as they could not get them on the previous charge, so they watched and waited.

 

So you are suggesting that in every case you have knowledge of that evidence was fabricated?

 

 

I hate to disagree, but my advice is not dangerous.

 

I'm afraid to say it is. You are ill-informed especially on police powers to stop vehicles under the RTA and to make blanket statements like you did in your original post is dangerous. Nothing more or less.

 

 

You say it is a tool, however it comes under the same blanket law as 'tools' used to monitor your phone line, which can only be used after a judge has allowed it.

ANPR is an invasion of privacy and no-one should stand for it.

 

Your comparison with phone taps is laughable, the 2 are not comparable in any way. ANPR is a tool used by police to assist them in dealing with disqualified drivers, uninsured drivers and also to help identify vehicles that have been used in crime. I suspect the vast majority of people will have no problem with it at all.

 

Personally, I have been through this situation twice and have beaten the cops both times, by using my advice before, thats why I wished to share it.

 

A statement like that is worthless without knowing the actual circumstances of your encounters.

 

 

Sure, but perhaps you would prefer more concrete evidence than me just saying so, so heres some links:

Spy Blog: ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) Data Retention guidance by ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers)

 

Scotsman.com News - Number plate cameras may be illegal

 

Hope thats enough to satisfy you, or I can talk twaddle about litigation and human rights for hours.

 

Cheers

Dani

 

You said ANPR is illegal. The links you have posted do nothing to strenghen your statement. Please provide some actual evidence that ANPR is illegal.

 

And one final thing, what do you do for a living? I hope you are not a solicitor or involved in any way with legal advise as the knowledge you have so far displayed is not up to scratch.

[StormWarrior]

Just a quick reply,

 

The ANPR is not only used by the police.

It is in most guises, a sort a cross reference system that actually checks a short list of " vehicles of interest" first.

It's 100 % legal, and in compliance with human rights legislation.

Having been at the sharp and blunt end of law for 20 years, I am appalled that anyone could spout the sort of 'advice' that the OP has in this thread.

Yes the first 3 "do not's" are right, then it all goes to pot.

 

Especially as no officer is going to tell you that they got your details from an ANPR system. Any patrol car fitted with ANPR will also have direct access to the PNC ( Police National Computer) and they willl cross reference anything via that first.

Most stops are because the plate of the vehicle has been TYPED into the PNC as a check, and that has brought up an 'irregularity'.

 

Is this the 'legal' persona of ROPV ??

Actually I think this is WORSE than RPOV, but I've been away for a fortnight:)

 

And just so you can actually look at the legislation you are quoting see below...

 

 

ARTICLE 8 RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

[danny_kiernan]

You are so wrong on this one Danny. If an officer sees someone not wearing their seatbelt and stops them, it won't be enough for the driver to get out of the car quickly to avoid the issue.

 

Thats quite a debatable point, if the police car has been alongside your car and no seatbelt is visible, then yes you will be fined. But if the police vehicle is behind you, there is generally no way to tell.

 

I suggest you re-read the Road Traffic Act. Police do not have to suspect you of an offence to be able to stop you, they can stop a vehicle just for the purpose of checking the driver is licenced, the car is insured and the vehicle has a valid MOT (if required). ANPR is a tool used by the police and if a car flashes up on it then they will use their RTA powers to stop the vehicle. It would not be a breach of human rights.

 

Unfortunately Rob, you are slightly wrong on this point, there has to be probable cause to pull over a driver. However probable cause has a pretty broad spectrum, which the police use to their advantage within the nanny state we live in.

 

This case went to the Privy Council and the ruling was overturned, so you are wrong again.

 

Please provide details on this, as there are no records within the law society, related to this judgement, you have mentioned.

 

 

The police will often let someone make the call, but it is a courtesy which they do not have to extend to the detained person. If you read the Pace codes of practice it is quite clear in the "allowing someone to be informed of your arrest and detention" or words to that effect.

 

Sorry to refer to human rights again, but it is a right to not be held incommunicado, of which PACE complies with. It is not a courtesy, but an inherant right. The House of Lords has been arguing this point, on the detention of suspected terrorist subjects, for quite some time.

 

 

So you are suggesting that in every case you have knowledge of that evidence was fabricated?

 

No that would be ridiculous, however on the cases in question, based upon what I have been told (yes I know thats hearsay) - it appears to be the case.

 

I'm afraid to say it is. You are ill-informed especially on police powers to stop vehicles under the RTA and to make blanket statements like you did in your original post is dangerous. Nothing more or less.

 

No.

 

Your comparison with phone taps is laughable, the 2 are not comparable in any way. ANPR is a tool used by police to assist them in dealing with disqualified drivers, uninsured drivers and also to help identify vehicles that have been used in crime. I suspect the vast majority of people will have no problem with it at all.

 

Well everyone is entitled to an opinion, perhaps you should look up the meaning of the words 'covert' and 'surveillance', before stating that something is laughable.

Mistakes also happen a lot on the DVLA database (which is well documented), plus if a car which was previously owned by a person with no insurance/tax/mot can be sold and all of the insurance/tax/mot sorted by the new owner - then the new owner gets pulled, not very nice for a law-abiding person is it?

 

A statement like that is worthless without knowing the actual circumstances of your encounters.

 

Not really, because I choose not to elaborate, that is a personal decision.

 

 

You said ANPR is illegal. The links you have posted do nothing to strenghen your statement. Please provide some actual evidence that ANPR is illegal.

 

Have a think about it, all your movements tracked - your patterns matched, etc - think about how much privacy you have.

 

And one final thing, what do you do for a living? I hope you are not a solicitor or involved in any way with legal advise as the knowledge you have so far displayed is not up to scratch.

 

As I said in a previous post, I will not divulge what I do for a living - as it is self promotion, which is against the forum rules - why don't you say what you do for a living instead

 

Kindly

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

Hi Stormwarrior,

 

The ANPR is not only used by the police.

It is in most guises, a sort a cross reference system that actually checks a short list of " vehicles of interest" first.

 

Thats quite true, it is in some NCP carparks, some of the Tescos car park entrances and I believe that the councils are negotiating installation in ASDA car parks too. It is also in other businesses car parks.

 

The deal is a sharing of information deal, with those ANPR cameras, so that the big superstores can keep a track of who is shopping at their store and when.

 

NCP use ANPR primarily to make sure that the same cars leave the car park as the ones that enter, and with the same drivers, to prevent car theft. I do not know that their ANPR system is linked to the DVLA or the PNC, so could not comment on that.

 

The other ANPR systems are a breach of privacy, however. Imagine someone following you, checking your movements and your habits. That is known as stalking, well the ANPR (linked) systems are basically doing that. Its stalking at a high level.

 

If BT monitored every call through their switchboard, that would be the same and people would be up in arms about it

 

It's 100 % legal, and in compliance with human rights legislation.

 

I hate to disagree, but it is not 100% legal and even senior police officers have stated that.

 

Having been at the sharp and blunt end of law for 20 years, I am appalled that anyone could spout the sort of 'advice' that the OP has in this thread.

Yes the first 3 "do not's" are right, then it all goes to pot.

 

I am glad you agree with the first 3 points, I do know however that the following points may not work in every case, but they worked for me, and also a couple of people I have mentioned them to.

 

Especially as no officer is going to tell you that they got your details from an ANPR system. Any patrol car fitted with ANPR will also have direct access to the PNC ( Police National Computer) and they willl cross reference anything via that first.

 

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear on this point, when the officer stops you and you ask them why they stopped you. If they give no answer you can quote them the data protection act. Plus you can leave if the officer does not give you an adequete explanation for stopping you - the law works both ways. There is also the opportunity to make a citizens arrest of the officer, but I DO NOT SUGGEST TRYING THAT AT ALL - that will end in tears all round.

 

Most stops are because the plate of the vehicle has been TYPED into the PNC as a check, and that has brought up an 'irregularity'.

 

Yes in the old fashioned system when you have been suspected of commiting an offence, the officer always types that into the system before stopping you, or radios the plate in, if they are in a car on their own. However,they do that once you are stopped, with the new ANPR system which has flagged you up.

 

Is this the 'legal' persona of ROPV ??

Actually I think this is WORSE than RPOV, but I've been away for a fortnight:)

 

I have no idea who ROPV is, but I assume he/she is a person making posts on this forum just to aggravate people. I can assure you that I am not trying to aggravate anyone, merely posting about something I believe is so wrong it is unreal.

 

And just so you can actually look at the legislation you are quoting see below...

 

 

ARTICLE 8 RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

I have the full copy of this from the European Court of human rights, but thanks for putting the abridged version up for people.

 

Kind Regards

 

Dani

[Rob S]

Thats quite a debatable point, if the police car has been alongside your car and no seatbelt is visible, then yes you will be fined. But if the police vehicle is behind you, there is generally no way to tell.

 

That's funny, because I find it very easy to tell if a driver is wearing a seatbelt or not when I am behind a vehicle. I'm sure a lot of other forum members will agree with me on this one.

 

 

Unfortunately Rob, you are slightly wrong on this point, there has to be probable cause to pull over a driver. However probable cause has a pretty broad spectrum, which the police use to their advantage within the nanny state we live in.

 

Police officers require probable cause in the USA to stop a vehicle but not in the UK. Take a look at section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:-

 

163.—(1) A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

 

(2) A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

 

(3) If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.

 

No mention of probable cause there. And on to section 164 and in particular 164 (1)(a):-

 

164.—(1) Any of the following persons—

(a) a person driving a motor vehicle on a road,

(b) a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road,

© a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use of a motor vehicle on a road, or

(d) a person—
(i) who supervises the holder of a provisional licence while the holder is driving a motor vehicle on a road, or
(ii) whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe was supervising the holder of a provisional licence while driving, at a time when an accident occurred owing to the presence of the vehicle on a road or at a time when an offence is suspected of having been committed by the holder of the provisional licence in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road,

must, on being so required by a constable, produce his licence for examination, so as to enable the constable to ascertain the name and address of the holder of the licence, the date of issue, and the authority by which it was issued."

 

Please provide details on this, as there are no records within the law society, related to this judgement, you have mentioned.

 

Stott v Brown

 

See paragraph 6.15 of this link:-

 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20181/45880

 

And one more for you:-

 

Judicial politics in the Judicial Committee : The Journal Magazine : The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland

 

Sorry to refer to human rights again, but it is a right to not be held incommunicado, of which PACE complies with. It is not a courtesy, but an inherant right. The House of Lords has been arguing this point, on the detention of suspected terrorist subjects, for quite some time.

 

Now you are going off on a tangent. When did being held incommunicado come into this discussion?

 

No that would be ridiculous, however on the cases in question, based upon what I have been told (yes I know thats hearsay) - it appears to be the case.

 

So you are saying this is the case in every single case you have knowledge of?

 

Well everyone is entitled to an opinion, perhaps you should look up the meaning of the words 'covert' and 'surveillance', before stating that something is laughable.

 

I stand by my comments. Your comparison was indeed laughable. Trying to bring in covert surveillance into the debate is somewhat tenuous.

 

 

Mistakes also happen a lot on the DVLA database (which is well documented), plus if a car which was previously owned by a person with no insurance/tax/mot can be sold and all of the insurance/tax/mot sorted by the new owner - then the new owner gets pulled, not very nice for a law-abiding person is it?

 

Indeed, DVLA do make mistakes, but whilst it won't be very nice for a new owner to get pulled, having just acquired a car from a keeper who wasn't law abiding, it is easy for the police to rectify the situation. And they have a legal power to stop the vehicle under the RTA. Most people wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

 

Not really, because I choose not to elaborate, that is a personal decision.

 

We'll just regard your claims as BS then, given your reluctance to elaborate.

 

Have a think about it, all your movements tracked - your patterns matched, etc - think about how much privacy you have.

 

I have plenty thank you very much. I have no qualms at all about the use of ANPR. Having been knocked off my motorcycle 3 years ago by someone who subsequently who gave me false details I am all in favour of any technology that will make it harder for people like him to flout the law (he had provided false details to DVLA, so the police placed a report on the vehicle record. He would have been picked up by ANPR).

 

As I said in a previous post, I will not divulge what I do for a living - as it is self promotion, which is against the forum rules

 

What nonsense!! :D

 

- why don't you say what you do for a living instead

 

I correct the bad advice given by people on internet forums who claim to have a lot of knowledge on subjects but who clearly know nothing.

[danny_kiernan]

Rob S - are you trying to provoke me into an argument, it seems by your posts that you are.

 

I have not been offensive, however you have towards me.

 

Kind Regards

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

Hello again

 

 

Stott v Brown

 

See paragraph 6.15 of this link:-

 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20181/45880

 

And one more for you:-

 

Judicial politics in the Judicial Committee : The Journal Magazine : The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland

 

If you check the links you sent, it refers to 'he' not 'she' as the case was a woman - so I concur that those links are total BS.

 

Thats why they do not appear in any legal journals. As they do not exist - please do not try to pull the wool over my eyes as I will find out.

 

And before you ask, I am not trying to cause an argument, but your replies are full of BS. The funny thing about a lie, is it should be a good lie - otherwise it will catch you in the end.

 

Kindly and sympathetically

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

That's funny, because I find it very easy to tell if a driver is wearing a seatbelt or not when I am behind a vehicle. I'm sure a lot of other forum members will agree with me on this one.

 

Thats personal opinion - you must have eagle-eyes

 

 

 

Police officers require probable cause in the USA to stop a vehicle but not in the UK. Take a look at section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:-

 

163.—(1) A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

 

(2) A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

 

(3) If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.

 

No mention of probable cause there. And on to section 164 and in particular 164 (1)(a):-

 

164.—(1) Any of the following persons—

• (a) a person driving a motor vehicle on a road,

• (b) a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road,

• © a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use of a motor vehicle on a road, or

• (d) a person—
  • (i) who supervises the holder of a provisional licence while the holder is driving a motor vehicle on a road, or
  • (ii) whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe was supervising the holder of a provisional licence while driving, at a time when an accident occurred owing to the presence of the vehicle on a road or at a time when an offence is suspected of having been committed by the holder of the provisional licence in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road,

  must, on being so required by a constable, produce his licence for examination, so as to enable the constable to ascertain the name and address of the holder of the licence, the date of issue, and the authority by which it was issued."

 

You are living on cloud 9 - the police require a reason to stop a vehicle - we aren't living in '1984', however it is getting like that.

 

Stott v Brown

 

See paragraph 6.15 of this link:-

 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20181/45880

 

And one more for you:-

 

Judicial politics in the Judicial Committee : The Journal Magazine : The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland

 

 

BS as the defendant was a woman, so references to 'He' are rubbish.

 

Now you are going off on a tangent. When did being held incommunicado come into this discussion?

 

You stated that a phonecall/ having someone informed was a courtesy. No it is a Human Right, not to be held incommunicado.

 

 

So you are saying this is the case in every single case you have knowledge of?

 

Yes every case I have intimate knowledge of.

 

 

I stand by my comments. Your comparison was indeed laughable. Trying to bring in covert surveillance into the debate is somewhat tenuous.

 

ANPR is covert surveillance - how can you argue with that?

 

We'll just regard your claims as BS then, given your reluctance to elaborate.

 

Lets regard your inability to provide laws as BS then

 

I have plenty thank you very much. I have no qualms at all about the use of ANPR. Having been knocked off my motorcycle 3 years ago by someone who subsequently who gave me false details I am all in favour of any technology that will make it harder for people like him to flout the law (he had provided false details to DVLA, so the police placed a report on the vehicle record. He would have been picked up by ANPR).

 

Cool I have a kawasaki GPZ 1100

 

 

I correct the bad advice given by people on internet forums who claim to have a lot of knowledge on subjects but who clearly know nothing.

 

Thats a bit of a rubbish job then

 

Kindly and Sympathetically

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

I reckon you are a 'plant' Rob S - sent to cause dissention among the ranks. You are probably a police officer of some ranking, not a pimple squeezer as I originally thought.

 

I won't tell you my jobtitle, nor will I tell you my title.

 

Kind Regards

 

Dani

[StormWarrior]

Dani, you appear to be under the impression that ALL the ANPR systems in use in the uk are all designed to be used as some sort of oppressive big brother system. They are not designed as such, however here is the risk that they could be used for covert survailence of individuals and as such I personally feel that thier use should be subject to more strict control than at present.

However, they do have a place in effective law enforcement, and like any potentially invasive tool, thier use is subject to control.

[StormWarrior]

RobS, I'm afraid that Dani is right, there is a right to a phone call. This granted by Pace, Code of Practice C: Sectin 5.6 if I remember correctly.

 

And it's in addition to having someone informed of thier arrest or the obtaining of legal advice.

[danny_kiernan]

Storm warrior,

did you not read what I said about npc?

 

I do not think all ANPR systems are oppressive, just the linked systems.

 

Kind Regards

 

Dani

[StormWarrior]

Just noticed this bit while re-reading.

 

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear on this point, when the officer stops you and you ask them why they stopped you. If they give no answer you can quote them the data protection act.

Data protection act wouild not apply in any way that I can see. The officer opinions, even if he wrote them in his pocket book, are NOT subject to the DPA in any way.

Plus you can leave if the officer does not give you an adequete explanation for stopping you - the law works both ways.

Failure to comply with the instuctions of a police office in the course of his duty ??

 

There is also the opportunity to make a citizens arrest of the officer, but I DO NOT SUGGEST TRYING THAT AT ALL - that will end in tears all round.

 

There would be no power of arrest if the police office did not give you a reason for stopping you.

[danny_kiernan]

Hi Again Storm Warrior,

ANPR has a definite legitemate use, but more for recognising stolen cars - nothing else. Anything else is invasion of privacy.

 

Thanks for helping me with Rob(plant) btw

 

Dani

[StormWarrior]

did you not read what I said about npc?

If you mean the PNC, they are not directly linked. Only through the action of the officer. And ALL access to the PNC is recorded, who, when, why.

 

Or NCP, whose systems are store and compare, and report.

 

However, as I have said before, any system has the potential for abuse, and controls should be strict.

[danny_kiernan]

Hi Storm Warrior,

 

Just noticed this bit while re-reading.

 

 

Data protection act wouild not apply in any way that I can see. The officer opinions, even if he wrote them in his pocket book, are NOT subject to the Data Protection Act in any way.

 

Even written down information comes under the data protection act.

 

Failure to comply with the instuctions of a police office in the course of his duty ??

 

Yes that is true if an officer has given a reason, if they haven't then it is not true.

 

There would be no power of arrest if the police office did not give you a reason for stopping you.

 

Yep

 

Dani

[StormWarrior]

ANPR has a definite legitemate use, but more for recognising stolen cars - nothing else. Anything else is invasion of privacy.

I had the priviledge of seeing the first ANPR systems many years ago, before many people had even heard the term. Beforethe London 'ring of steel' was set up, most people did not even know what ANPR meant.

That system was destined to fail as it checked plates against a list of tagged index numbers. Computer power then could not check against the DVLA records simply because of the the number of records. Much has changed

[danny_kiernan]

I meant ncp - who are at the forefront of car theft, with their own ANPR system

[danny_kiernan]

Pretty much like the birmingham ring of steel

I had the priviledge of seeing the first ANPR systems many years ago, before many people had even heard the term. Beforethe London 'ring of steel' was set up, most people did not even know what ANPR meant.

That system was destined to fail as it checked plates against a list of tagged index numbers. Computer power then could not check against the DVLA records simply because of the the number of records. Much has changed