Guildford Hearing on Right to Silence 15/4/02

Media:

Present
Meridien TV, AP (news service), Solent News Serice and one other reporter present. See publicity received at the end.

The hearing

Although we had stated well in advance that we would not be challening any facts, the CPS called a witness from Surrey Police speed camera unit - a chapr who, it turned out later, did not know the casualty figures, but appeared less impressed by the rise in fatalities in Surrey than by the fall near speed cameras - presumably on the basis that its not whether you die but where you die that really matters..........

The case took 90 minutes instead of the anticipated 30, not a problem as the court had set aside the entire day for the hearing despite our pointing out that this was unecessary!

We were told in advance that the normal fine for would be similar to that for the speeding offence the authorities could not proceed on - 47 in a 30 area - £150 plus 3 penalty points.

The CPS barrister stated the case, and handed over a statement that we accept the facts.

Michael set out the events in sequence, and that this is a vital issue affecting 3,000 people per day.
Having put forward our view and the support behind it, and also that I have produced an analysis which shows that speed cameras certainly do not casualties below the previous trend, but also that the previous fall in fatalities had ground to a halt overall, and in many areas, particularly those with large numbers of cameras, are rising sharply for the first time for 30 years. He submitted by analysis to the Clerk of the Court and the CPS barrister for information, though not part of the argument proper.

MS said that camera prosections should stop until the ECHR result is known - CPS said no!

He then said that we accept that as the law stands the magistrates have no ability to acquit, and invited them to convict, albeit no plea had been entered. Which they did.

The costs of £250 and 3 penalty points were as expcted, but the magistrates claimed to be imposing a penalty according to normal guidlines related to income, of £750 - 5 times the normal figure!

Has anyone ever heard of a fine of £750 for 17mph over the limit? It seems quite extaordinary, if not vindictive, even though we argued that we have a valid arguable point of law, and also that speed cameras are leading to increased fatalities!

When MS said we would appeal the fine, the magistrate said it was based on the going rate - adjusted for 6 previous points and income level. I find that difficult to believe, but the risk of appealing is more cost of £500 for the court and £300 other, so as we probably could not get it knocked down much below £300, hardly a sensible bet.

I seem to recall a few years ago that the parliament did , via the courts introduce (at least for motoring offences) a scale of fines related to income, but I thought, and Michael is sure, that there were such howls of rage that it was abandoned some time ago.

Does anyone know whether higher fines for higher incomes (as opposed to refuced fines for those unable to pay) are still part of the normal system?

Perhaps easier to wait until we win at the ECHR in 5 years time and then get it back - with interest!

Of course we knew what the result would be before we went - other than the level of fine - and this changes nothing, the application to the ECHR goes ahead. Submission May, accepted or not next summer.verdict 3 years after that.

Bloodied but unbowed, the fight continues.

Idris

Publicity afterwards

Meridien News

Good 3 minute lead item on Meridien 6-ish news and late news, even before the titles came up. Shot of Speed 25 (15 ft 9", 1/2 of which is bonnet, pulling up alonside a fortuitously-parked Smart car! Interview included pointing out that speed cameras are not working, that fatalities have stopped falling after 22 years, and in many places are rising again for the first time since 1972. Also the importance of the right to silence as defence against a police state etc.

BBC Item I did not see. Secondhand report and old film but covered anyway, probably in South only.

Interview Monday pm on radio in South Wales and Tueday on County Sound, Hampshire.

Long article in Daily Mail page 19, 2/3 page showing 'Road Casualties Rise' as speed camera fines double to £25m, then 1/3 page on my case, with picture. Also Leader 'Hollow Pretence' saying that it is wrong that police as raising money under pretence of safety measures that are not working, and that the camera system should be 'subject to a searching official review rather than extended'

As the Mail is not on the Web I will retype it this evening.




Tuesday 16 April 2002

Speed camera case heads for human rights court (Filed: 15/04/2002)

A retired company director pledged after being convicted of a minor motoring offence today that he would be taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Idris Francis, 62, was convicted by magistrates at Guildford, Surrey, of failing to supply information about who was driving his 60,000 1938 vintage Alvis car when it was clocked by a speed camera doing 47mph in a 30mph zone last year.

Failing to give the information is an offence under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Francis was fined £750 and ordered to pay 250 costs, and given three penalty points on his licence.

The court had heard that his 3.5 litre Alvis was photographed at 47mph on the A325 at Merrow, Guildford, on June 12 last year. Mr Michael Shrimpton, defending, argued in court that being forced to identify the driver would contravene his right to silence and his right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Francis, the former director of an electronics firm who owns several other vintage cars, and who is being backed by the civil rights group Liberty, was convicted after making admissions of fact, although he pleaded not guilty to the offence.

He said he would also appeal in the Crown Court over the severity of today's fine.

Mr Shrimpton told the court that the issue was "one of law and not of fact" and that the use of speed cameras to catch speeding drivers throughout the UK would now be taken to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Any final decision is likely to take at least five years.

Mr Shrimpton told the court: "My client has taken a point of principle of very great significance. The right to silence is a cherished right."

After the hearing Francis, of West Meon, near Winchester, Hampshire, said: "The Government, the Home Office and the police are saying in my case and thousands of cases every day is 'Because we don't have sufficient evidence to prove this in court we insist that you confess'.

If you don't confess, they impose another penalty on you. We are on a stepping stone to state tyranny. The law compels motorists to name the driver of their vehicle when an alleged offence is committed. In a normal criminal case a suspect has the right to silence and to choose not to answer a police officer's questions.

They have no right to take away motorists' rights to silence. The right to silence is a fundamental right. The right of a suspect to say nothing is one of the most vital rights in any free society."

Mr Francis, originally from Wales, said he was prepared to pay 20,000 in estimated court costs over the next few years to win the battle. He added: "I believe I have vast support from the majority of motorists across the country."

Liberty director John Wadham, who is acting as Mr Francis's solicitor, said: "Section 172 is an assault on the basic right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. It is unreasonable to require people to 'confess' on the basis that if they don't they will anyway be committing another criminal offence. Although it may not seem as serious to force people to confess in traffic cases, the principle must apply here as in all other criminal cases."



© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002. Terms & Conditions of reading. Commercial information. Privacy Policy. Read more

Having recently purchased a new 320d SE, (with which I am absolutely delighted) - I am somewhat confused as to oil change intervals, BMW are recommending 13k miles when Castrol SLX synthetic is used, whilst H.J. is saying oil must be changed after 6k miles. Is this still necessary with these modern lubricants, which cost in excess of £11 per litre? I am concerned after reading recent threads that turbo bearings are failing circa 40k on the 530 diesels.
Any help and advice would be welcome. Read more

I know the subject of LPG is discussed quite regularly on this forum ??.but I don?t think anybody has asked this question before.

I?ve trying to investigate the various types of LPG conversions available and their respective advantages/disadvantages over the last few days and am now even more confused than when I started.

There seems to be 2 main systems available;
1. Induction systems
2. Injection systems ? which are divided into
a) single point injection
b) multi-point injection

Information suggests that the induction systems have been around for a while and seem to be ?tried and tested? but the injection systems seem to be at the stage (3rd generation) where almost any type of petrol engine i.e. multi-valve, turbo, variable valve timing etc. can be converted and they will comply with the strictest emissions regulations. However there seem to be a lot of horror stories, mainly regarding ?blowback? causing air boxes to explode. Does this phenomenon apply to both types of systems ? Also in some cases it seems to wear out valve seats and stems where they are not ?hardened? enough to cope with combustion qualities of LPG. Recent engines don?t seem to suffer from this problem so much (???).

Petrol Land Rover owners will be glad to hear that the venerable LR V8 in it?s various guises is very popular with LPG converts. However an awful lot of them seem to be complaining about very poor consumption on LPG, for example mpg on petrol is 20-22, therefore with LPG you would reasonably expect 15-17 mpg, but owners are only getting 10-12 mpg on LPG which makes the conversion almost redundant. I?m not sure whether this is due to installation problems or otherwise.

Also a lot of DIY installers don?t seem to be doing their homework and matching the LPG system to their cars engine/power requirements, leading to problems such as loss of power, no revs etc.

Finally, ( I heard that sigh of relief ! ) which system would backroomers recommend for the BMW 3.5ltr 12 valve straight 6 ? (circa 1984-1992)

Regards,

Chad.R Read more

Hi

I am attempting to find the correct (white) colour for my Vauxhall Nova 1.2 Merit 3 door hatchback 1989F.

Having purchased a can of VAUXHALL GLACIER WHITE from Halfords , believing it to be correct white according to the Halford`s Paint Can Catalogue I have discovered that it is the wrong shade.( It is too "bluey".....The white I`m looking for is a similar shade to the Halfords White PRIMER ! )

The paint code shown on the car VIN plate is E474 058

Can anyone help me identify which white it is or point me to a website with a list of codes.?

Failing that I`ll have to make a trip to a Vauxhall dealer or Paint Motor Factors next weekend.



Thanks

Scott Read more

Does anyone have any experience of this product? How does it compare to Millers DieselClean Plus, it purports to do the same job and is certainly easier to get hold of.

Thanks for any contributions
Terry Read more