Some wise words from Quentin Wilson for a change...
SILENCE IN COURT Jan 4 2002
It's the only legal way to beat the speed camera menace
IT LOOKS like speed cameras are going to be making the news again this year.
Research has shown that their proliferation has damaged relations between public and police and caused bitter resentment among the nation's 30 million motorists.
Last year, in an attempt to calm things down, the government did a U-turn and declared that all cameras must be made more visible and sited only on roads with a proven accident history.
And the men responsible for the UK's speed camera policy - the Association Of Chief Police Officers - have fallen out with Home Secretary David Blunkett, who is concerned over ACPO's desire for more cameras and their attitude of zero tolerance towards speeders.
Road accident figures also show that injuries and fatalities have not fallen as much as expected (in fact, in some areas they've actually increased), casting doubt over the speed camera lobby's road safety justification.
The M25, with its hundreds of cameras, has even been officially branded Britain's most dangerous motorway.
Now, the whole issue is to be paraded through the international courts, after Guildford magistrates allowed a motorist caught by camera to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Idris Francis, from Surrey, was instructed by his solicitor to refuse to supply details of who was driving his car at the time of the offence. Francis's lawyer claims that to do so would violate his legal right to silence and protection from self-incrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights.
Even though Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act (1988) states that the registered owner of a vehicle caught speeding on camera must supply details of who was driving, lawyers are now saying that the legislation threatens an individual's right to a fair trial.
And if the Court of Human Rights rules in Mr Francis's favour, hundreds of thousands of convictions could be rendered unsound.
The legal right not to self-incriminate has been used successfully by a small minority of motorists over the past two years. I know one bloke who has refused to incriminate himself five times and even a couple of senior police officers have tried it. In all instances, the cases have been dismissed.
Motoring organisations previously believed that the non-incrimination cases were being thrown out due to cost but secret documents now show that Government lawyers are well aware of the legal anomaly and have advised police forces not to take motorists who plead silence to court - simply because they know that the Crown will lose the case.
So, if you're unlucky enough to be caught on camera this year, get your lawyer to ask the JP's leave to appeal to the Court of Human Rights and don't incriminate yourself. You have a legal right to stay silent. Don't be intimidated and throw your rights away. Let the police do what the law says they must do - prove your guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Some wise words from Quentin Wilson for a change...
SILENCE IN COURT Jan 4 2002
It's the only legal way to beat the speed camera menace
IT LOOKS like speed cameras are going to be making the news again this year.
Research has shown that their proliferation has damaged relations between public and police and caused bitter resentment among the nation's 30 million motorists.
Last year, in an attempt to calm things down, the government did a U-turn and declared that all cameras must be made more visible and sited only on roads with a proven accident history.
And the men responsible for the UK's speed camera policy - the Association Of Chief Police Officers - have fallen out with Home Secretary David Blunkett, who is concerned over ACPO's desire for more cameras and their attitude of zero tolerance towards speeders.
Road accident figures also show that injuries and fatalities have not fallen as much as expected (in fact, in some areas they've actually increased), casting doubt over the speed camera lobby's road safety justification.
The M25, with its hundreds of cameras, has even been officially branded Britain's most dangerous motorway.
Now, the whole issue is to be paraded through the international courts, after Guildford magistrates allowed a motorist caught by camera to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Idris Francis, from Surrey, was instructed by his solicitor to refuse to supply details of who was driving his car at the time of the offence. Francis's lawyer claims that to do so would violate his legal right to silence and protection from self-incrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights.
Even though Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act (1988) states that the registered owner of a vehicle caught speeding on camera must supply details of who was driving, lawyers are now saying that the legislation threatens an individual's right to a fair trial.
And if the Court of Human Rights rules in Mr Francis's favour, hundreds of thousands of convictions could be rendered unsound.
The legal right not to self-incriminate has been used successfully by a small minority of motorists over the past two years. I know one bloke who has refused to incriminate himself five times and even a couple of senior police officers have tried it. In all instances, the cases have been dismissed.
Motoring organisations previously believed that the non-incrimination cases were being thrown out due to cost but secret documents now show that Government lawyers are well aware of the legal anomaly and have advised police forces not to take motorists who plead silence to court - simply because they know that the Crown will lose the case.
So, if you're unlucky enough to be caught on camera this year, get your lawyer to ask the JP's leave to appeal to the Court of Human Rights and don't incriminate yourself. You have a legal right to stay silent. Don't be intimidated and throw your rights away. Let the police do what the law says they must do - prove your guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.