http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/outpu ... 986t0.shtm
Police will keep up action on speedsters
Tayside Police and the prosecution service have made it clear they will continue to take action against suspected speeding drivers who try to get off the hook by arguing that identifying themselves as their vehicles’ drivers would breach their human rights, writes Bruce Robbins and Andrew Argo.
It has emerged that some drivers in other areas may have avoided paying a penalty after falling foul of a speed camera by refusing to say whether or not they were behind the wheel.
British legislation makes it an offence to withhold this information when asked by police but some motorists elsewhere appear to have body-swerved the Road Traffic Act by claiming that “self-incrimination” would breach the European Convention on Human Rights.
Although apparently warned by Strathclyde and Inverness police forces that failure to say who was driving the offending vehicle could lead to prosecution, the drivers stuck to their argument and claim that no further action was taken.
If such a defence was to be successfully tested in court and widely used, the implications for police and the Crown Office could potentially be enormous, possibly rendering all speeding convictions obtained since the introduction of the Human Rights Act suspect.
The Crown Office has insisted that signing a police form stating that he or she was the driver does not represent self-incrimination for a motorist “because it is not of itself, and without further evidence, an offence to drive a car”.
The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland concurred with that view with the association’s president, Chief Constable David Strang, saying there are laws compelling the car owner to say who was driving.
He added, “That means if a police force wanted to pursue it, they could take a driver to court and the car owner would be breaking the law by refusing to reveal the driver.”
Chief Inspector Sandy Bowman, head of Tayside’s Road Policing Unit, said section 172 of the Road Traffic Act made it clear that a person was legally bound, under certain circumstances, to say if he was the driver of a car when asked.
So far, no driver has used the “self incrimination” defence in Tayside but Mr Bowman was clear about the consequences if such an argument were to be advanced.
He added, “There’s a duty on people to give details of the driver and if a person doesn’t, that could constitute an offence. Any driver in Tayside who refused to say if he was the driver would have his case reported to the Procurator Fiscal.”
Area procurator fiscal Betty Bott said the issue had stake had already been tested in a case which went all the way to the Privy Council, and this had confirmed that under Scots law there was an entitlement to require people to give the name of a driver when this information was sought.
Mrs Bott continued, “Both the police and ourselves have received extensive training on issues that arise under the European Convention on Human Rights, and we are confident that our law is in balance with the ECHR.”
The issue, she added, did not arise on a daily basis.
However, Paul Smith of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, which militates against the use of speed cameras claiming the growth in their numbers has coincided with an increase in injury accidents, said many drivers were finding that, if contested, some speed camera offences might not be successfully prosecuted.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
