Perhaps you saw that article at the bottom of page one of yesterday's Saturday Telegraph entitled "Blunkett's double defeat on police and asylum"?
In the article, it says "It [the Court of Appeal] agreed with an earlier High Court ruling that the penalty was in breach of human rights because individual circumstances were not taken into account". It relates to fixed fines of £2000 for hauliers with asylum seekers hiding in their lorries, but surely, therefore, Gatsos are illegal because they take no account of the circumstances of the "offence".
|
You could be right, Nick. Taken along with Idris' 'right to silence' case, this could well form a useful plank in the fight against the cameras.
Andy.
|
|
|
|
The circumstances are different with Garso's and the fines handed out to lorry drivers found with stoaways on board. The fixed penalty handed out to speeding motorists is only applicable to those who except it. Those who don't are free to challenge the offence in court, and if a suitable defence can be argued the fine and endorsement can be waived, especially if one is a senior police officer or a public figure. The penalty for lorry drivers, however, was automatic no matter what the circumstances.
|
|
|
Yes Tom,
I had a rant about this one on the time to emigrate thread. The whole point about Blunkett's mealy mouthed defence of the situation is that the lorry driver penalty is a civil penalty and not a criminal penalty. Therefore he reasons that it is consequently OK to remove the right to a fair trial, to remove the right to be presumed innocent till proved guilty. It appears he think it is right, as its a *civil* offence to have the burden of proof on the lorry driver to prove they were innocent.
How many times have we heard on this site the discussion about decriminalising motoring offences, only to have the conclusion that motoring offences are not criminal but civil offences.
Everyone in the Backroom is intelligent enough to see where the argument is going next so I'll leave it there.
One last message to KB, 150/90 up from 106/70 arrrrrggggggghhhhhh!
cheers all,
Stuart
|
|
Of course, if it *is* a civil offence, then the standard of proof only has to be 'balance of probability', rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'. However, you can't then be criminalised for not paying the fine...
|
|
And according to the editor of "Freight News" (I think) on radio 5 on Friday afternoon the vast majority of the haulage companies haven't paid the fines they've been handed. However there's still some poor buggers that have and I doubt they'll be getting their money back.
|
|
|
|
There's an important point you're missing. The fine for carrying illegal immigrants is illegal because it is imposed on the lorry driver, even if he takes precautions against it happening. However, exceeding the speed limit on a road is illegal, and since it is you who are responsible for the speed at which you are driving, it is not in breach of your human rights.
Under what circumstances is it 'acceptable' to break the speed limit?
Andy
|
When you know where the spiteful devices and people are not present, and provided you drive appropriately having regard to road conditions.
Cheers, Tomo
Andy P wrote:
>
> There's an important point you're missing. The fine for
> carrying illegal immigrants is illegal because it is imposed
> on the lorry driver, even if he takes precautions against it
> happening. However, exceeding the speed limit on a road is
> illegal, and since it is you who are responsible for the
> speed at which you are driving, it is not in breach of your
> human rights.
>
> Under what circumstances is it 'acceptable' to break the
> speed limit?
>
>
> Andy
|
|
|
|
Under what circumstances is it 'acceptable' to break the speed limit?
When that limit always used to be 50 on a nice wide road with grass verges and two lanes in each direction, but has now suddenly become 'unsafe' at anything over 30, despite the road having a good accident record.
If a limit is plainly unreasonable, motorists feel hard-done-by and drive at a speed that feels reasonable.
|
I quite agree, but the current climate means that even if the road is deserted except for a couple of rabbits, you're still going to be nicked.
As far as I can see,the only circumstances in which you can break the speed limit are (a) you're a copper and you're late for your tea or (b) you're a politician or chauffer for a politician. Us poor sods just have to live with it.
Andy P
|
|
|
|
The problem may be that most limits are determined locally, either there are no national standards or they are ignored.
Also, one hazard on a sizeable length of road drops the limit on the whole lot. The result can be bored drivers who do not notice the hazard until too late.
IMHO it would be better if limits were set realistically, even if that means that they change more frequently along a road.
And if bus lanes can be signed to apply only at set times e.g. 7 am - 10 am Mondays to Fridays, why cannot limits follow the same pattern?.
|
"IMHO it would be better if limits were set realistically, even if that means that they change more frequently along a road."
Brian I know what you mean, however I'm not sure this is the answer. If you are ever up in the Derbyshire area try driving along the A6 from Derby to Belper. This is exactly what they have done and the limit is up and down more than a ****'s drawers in some parts.
It means that you have to concentrate very very hard as to what the limit is at any point in time, and I'm not sure it is an improvement in reality.
Stuart
|
|
|
|
