BBC NEWS | UK | Motorists lose speed camera case

Can't wait for the even application of this principle in all areas of life - Administrative Law and various ex - PMs' come to mind !

Nick,

29/06/07

What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty". As I understand it, under UK law, the police etc. have to PROVE someone committed the offence, not a person has to prove their innocence.

What about -

"You have the right to remain silent"

"Anything you do say can and will be used against you".

The legal term for it is "The presumption of innocence" - supposedly the foundation of the English Legal system.

Just shows how easy it is to undermine peoples rights without them even knowing its been done using a little bit of trickery dressed up as administrative convenience and, lets face it, this has been the standard approach to obtaining the "Information" used in prosecutions for fixed penalty Road Traffic Offences for some time now.

There are plenty of other examples of this going on elsewhere, no names, no, pack drill !

Nick,

29/06/07

What about -

"You have the right to remain silent"

"Anything you do say can and will be used against you".

Not any more!

It's now "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

more proof we are slipping into the communist states of europe,its all down hill from here:thumbdwn:

a version of this argument was used successfully in this country...

1) you DO have to state who was driving the car under UK law.. (if you know)

BUT then, once charged, you retract the statement, and choose your "right to remain silent" the previous statement then cannot be used as evidence,(as it was retracted and before anyone was charged) and its up to the police to PROVE who was driving the car, if they can't the case is dropped.

I think in the new story, they got caught out because they "refused" to say who was driving, because it was against their human rights, (and, as in 1) you do have to say if you know...) and this IS punishable with the results they got.....

I remember a recent news report in a driving school magazine, where an instructor got a speeding fine dropped, when he said he "honestly" couldn't be sure who was driving, as he was doing "piggyback" lessons, with two pupils, which meant both of them (and possibly him) could have been driving the car when it was caught (the pupils had testomonies along the line of "when we went down that road it was 'probably' about half three" ect ect) which was all genuine testimony, they couldn't remember exactly, the police decided everyone involved had done their best to give proof of who was driving, and as the police couldn't offer evidence of which one of them it was, the case was dropped.... (they had travelled down the road more than once at 'around' the time of the offence...)

edit: why the f**k should court and police time be wasted in this fashion with a FAILED speed camera policy, when there are SO few traffic police on the road, that much more serious crimes go completely missed...