h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5383726.stm

So what do we think about this bad boy?

I didn't know we had a right to silence. I thought that went when the police changed what they said when they nicked you. So I must say I was surprised when I read this story.

What surprises me about this is that I got a ticket last year. On the back, it was clearly stated that I did not have the right to refuse to name the driver under either UK Legislation or HRA. If this case succeeds, I suspect there are potentially hundreds of thousands of cases that could be contested retrospectively.

Where people are getting some kind of benefit, I think it's fair to say up-front that there are some kinds of defined responsibilites involved, which could involve giving information to the police about things for which you are responsible.

For example, corrupt company directors might say it's unfair to be required to give information to the police on how their company was run, and run off and whine to the European Courts. However, if it was simply one of the legal responsibilites of being a director that they were to co-operate with the police even if their evidence could be used against them, with a serious penalty for not doing so, if they didn't like that, they could simply stop being a company director.

Likewise, it should be possible to state that one condition of being a registered keeper of a car is being prepared to give information to the best of one's abilities about who was driving at a particular time. If people don't want to go along with that, then they shouldn't be allowed to own a car.

If the owner of the car is *not* the person speeding, presumably they could be prosecuted for obstructing the course of justice for not co-operating by naming the driver, and would have no defence of avoiding self-incrimination.

If they were asked to name the driver and refused, it could be reliably concluded that they were either guilty of the driving offence *or* guilty of obstructing the course of justice.

If they said "I honestly don't remember", and there was at least some significant possibility that they didn't (if they regularly swapped cars with and drove on the same route as their partner, or swapped driving duties on a long drive and didn't remember where), then it would be tricky blaming any one driver, though I guess that's the kind of excuse that couldn't be used repeatedly by someone with much hope it would work every time.

I'd have thought it was pretty clear cut anyway...

Owner of vehicle gets a speeding ticket - refuses to pay because he wasn't driving

Gets taken to court, is ordered by the magistrate to name the person driving, refuses, is then done for contempt of court - which I suspect would cost them a great deal more than the speeding ticket.

Yes but I supose it wouldn't stop them driving or put points on the driing liscence. Some people can lose there jobs if they get them so for them it is worth it.

>I didn't know we had a right to silence. I thought that went when the police changed what they said when they nicked you.<

Another popular misconception about Police State Britain.

The Right to Silence remains intact. What you can no longer do is produce a defence to a crime at a later date an expect that the jury cannot draw conclusions as to why you didn't raise that defence at the first possible opportunity.

But they just used a guy's keeping silent as an indication of his guilt in a much-publicised case recently. He said nothing when he was arrested, at trial he said he couldn't recall the alleged incident so the prosecution argued successfully along the lines that "He can't deny it now if he didn't deny it when he was arrested."

Sorry, another point. It appears that the emphasis has changed from the prosecution needing to prove guilt, to the defendant needing to prove innocence. Is that an over-simplistic way of looking at it?

Going from saying nothing to saying 'I can't remember' is a path strewn with danger for a defendant, I'm afraid. The difficulty with that approach is that

a) it makes it very difficult for the defence to gainsay *anything* said by the witnesses. You effectively throw yourself on the mercy of the court because the only 'facts' that will be heard are what the witnesses say, so if five witnesses say 'I saw SWL throw the brick through the window', you can't say 'No they didn't', the most you can say is 'I don't remember doing it'. Logically, the Jury only have one conclusion to draw, don't they?

b) The Jury are entitled to ask themselves 'why didn't he tell the police 'I don't remember doing it?' Why sit there and say *nothing* when you do have something to say?'.

The speed camera does effectively change the burden of proof, but it is only for that offence - it doesn't affect any other offences at all. For my part I'll be gobsmacked if the European Court touch this, not least because I can't see what Article of the ECHR guarantees the right to silence.

A2292734 I never have understood the structure of the Action Network.

"Protest has been slowly growing in various forms, from militant protesters attacking the cameras themselves to a campaign to ‘starve the cameras’ of funds by keeping to the speed limit."

I'm with potholer and whisky. My girlfriend had a friend in high school who got hit by a car (not very seriously luckily) while in a crosswalk with the walk sign. The car then drove off.

They took it to the police, but they then had to do a line up to try to pick out the driver. The owner of course claimed his friend was driving, the friend of course claimed he wasn't. It would be useful if the owner were responsible for who was allowed to drive their car.

>a campaign to ‘starve the cameras’ of funds by keeping to the speed limit<

Oh dear. They just don't get it do they?

I thought that was really funny when I read it as well!

>>"They took it to the police, but they then had to do a line up to try to pick out the driver. The owner of course claimed his friend was driving, the friend of course claimed he wasn't. It would be useful if the owner were responsible for who was allowed to drive their car."

One problem there is that the owner may really be telling the truth, with the other person guilty but denying it. Bewteen them they may well both know who is telling the truth, but if no-one else does, there's a limit to how much of a penalty can be fairly imposed on the owner.
It seems reasonable to say a vehicle's owner is responsible for fines, parking tickets, etc, but it gets a bit more difficult when it comes to serious offences.

I wonder what the insurance situation would be in that case - would it be considered the same as being hit by an uninsured driver, or would some civil action with a lower standard of proof end up pointing the finger at one or other driver?

Maybe they were both p!ssed as farts. Would that be a valid reason for forgetting?

forgetting and hitting in the first place.

where is the line drawn? If I loan my car to a random stranger and that person drives recklessly and kills someone how much am I to blame? Assume I know nothing about the stranger except that they look like they are of the legal driving age.

I'm not sure whether this attempt to get off paying a speeding fine will work or not, but even if it does it will presumably only be a temporary respite. They'll just have to start introducing cameras that take a picture of the person driving the car as well as the car's numberplate.

Hey, when y'all get your national ID badges in the UK, you can just do a proximity read on that in addition to the photo. That should make a nice complete package of evidence for "convicting" speeders. Another good reason for the National ID badge.