Triumphrat

TonyD · 06-29-2007, 07:34 AM

So, it seems that European human rights law does not, after all, recognise any right that 'no person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself' (a concept once also respected by English common law):

The Issue

The Outcome

So, nowadays in England, not only is it OK to try someone again and again for the same offence, but it's OK, too, to compel him to incriminate himself. But then, as a senior government law officer remarked recently, we can't live in the past, we need laws that are relevant to life in the 21st century.

Just so.

e404pnf · 06-29-2007, 08:58 AM

I'm torn on this one...

On the one hand I completely agree that you should not be forced to incriminate yourself. As you correctly point out, while the UK doesn't have a constitution in which to have a 5th amendment, this has always been protected right in British (?? common) law.

However, it's (pretty much) universally accepted that speed limits are beneficial to society as a whole. You may not agree that the speed to which the limit is set is appropriate, but that is a different argument. Therefore, if you are going to have speed limits they should be enforced just like any other law.

I think what rightly annoys people is that speed cameras are seen as a way to generate income rather than promote safety -- and in many cases I'd have to agree(!). Rather than seeing the cameras as promoting safer roads, see them as making drivers stick to the law.

While it shouldn't, what really swings this for me is that this wasn't raised as a civil liberties case. It was a bloke trying to get out of a ticket -- he was going 47 mph in a 30 zone. It wasn't as if he was just over the limit!

I know this probably isn't a popular view, but at least it's my honest view...

Gav

PS re: multiple trials -- isn't that just when there is new and compelling evidence for a second prosecution (just look at the advances in DNA technologies in the last 25 years)? Also, don't the CPS need a judicial ruling to even bring a case for a second trial? (I think this be the case but it could be completely wrong)

[ This message was edited by: e404pnf on 2007-06-29 06:59 ]

stephenjpauls · 06-29-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

On 2007-06-29 06:58, e404pnf wrote:
However, it's (pretty much) universally accepted that speed limits are beneficial to society as a whole. You may not agree that the speed to which the limit is set is appropriate, but that is a different argument. Therefore, if you are going to have speed limits they should be enforced just like any other law.

Sorry to hijack this tread with my response to the above comment, but I would like to say that my personal feeling is that speed limits, at least in the US, are not beneficial to society. I admit that it is my personal, and unpopular opinion, but what use is a law that 99+% of people break at sometime in their life? Most break it every day. I have often wondered, if a poll were taken on all drivers, how many people would actually claim that they have never exceeded the speed limit? Why pass a law that is broken by the people making it, the people enforcing it, and the people as a whole? I know, I usually drive within a tolerance above the speed limit to avoid prosecution, however this, and a few other stupid traffic laws are the only laws which I knowingly break.

I was in a meeting this morning with 13 people that I work with and because this was bothering me, before the meeting started I asked if any of them did not exceed the speed limit at some time on their way to work this morning. Only one of them said yes, of course he rode his bicycle today. This group of people were ages (24 – 53) with 8 men and 5 women. Of the group only 2 of us felt that speed limits should be abolished. That means that 11 people of the 13 support a law that they knowingly and willfully disobey on a regular basis.

I fail to see the logic in this.

--Steve

TonyD · 06-29-2007, 10:40 AM

Well, the justification for law itself is that it is beneficial to society as a whole; on that argument one could justify abolishing the right to silence in respect of any offence of which someone is accused. It is not the appropriateness of law that is in question here, rather the fairness of the machinery employed to enforce it.

One can, and many do, use the desire to see law breakers punished to justify the removal or dilution of any or all of the other safeguards that have been built into our legal system over the years: the right to a trial by one's peers (jury trial); the right to effective and independent legal representation; the right to confront one's accusers; the right not to be placed in double jeopardy; the right to a trial itself. Indeed, erosion of all of these rights has been advocated or implemented for one reason or another by government and others in recent times.

It is as if politicians want us to believe that safeguards formulated during the rule of kings are no longer necessary or affordable in modern democracies. I fear we swallow that argument at our peril.

e404pnf · 06-29-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

On 2007-06-29 08:14, stephenjpauls wrote:
Sorry to hijack this tread with my response to the above comment, but I would like to say that my personal feeling is that speed limits, at least in the US, are not beneficial to society. I admit that it is my personal, and unpopular opinion, but what use is a law that 99+% of people break at sometime in their life? Most break it every day. I have often wondered, if a poll were taken on all drivers, how many people would actually claim that they have never exceeded the speed limit?

Hi Steve,

Sorry, I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Is your argument that there should be no speed limits or that the limits are too low?

I don't think the view that speed limits are too low would be seen as unpopular, especially on motorways/freeways. If you are saying the limits are too low, 99+% of people ignore them so s.c.r.a.p* all speed limits, then yes this is probably an unpopular view. I don't have kids but would like to see a 30 limit near schools. I wouldn't even object to a 20 directly outside schools, but wouldn't be surprised if I was in the minority with that one :-D

Gav

* Can't believe I have to write s***** as "s.c.r.a.p" :???: :-D

e404pnf · 06-29-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

I fear we swallow that argument at our peril.

Hi Tony,

I concede that this is the thin end of a VERY large wedge, but there are exceptions that prove every rule and IMO this is one of them. In principle, I agree with you completely. However, I think this is an exception, which I know makes me a complete hypocrite and I hate myself for it

Hopefully in 10 years time I'm not eating humble pie!

Gav

Archimedes · 06-29-2007, 12:24 PM

"So, it seems that European human rights law does not, after all, recognise any right that 'no person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself' (a concept once also respected by English common law"

Actually it does Tony. You can blame Bliar for opting out of the various EU Justice clauses. Thus:

"Their judgement noted that people "who choose to keep and drive cars" have implicitly "accepted certain responsibilities" under UK law."

It didn't surprise me Tony. Traitor Bliar's final parting trick was to opt out of the EU Treaty/Constitution clause on the right to exercise free speech among other key issues.

The sooner we become 100% European the better.

The Middle-East are welcome to Bliar.

panda · 06-29-2007, 12:34 PM

TonyD
I used to be proud to be british,
we had trial by jury, Magna Carta, Habeous corpus a presumption of innocence until 'proven' guilty and a sense of fair play.
Under Bliar that has all gone.
In many ways now many so called 'civilised' countries have worse record on human rights and worse legal systems than nazi germany. Even Hitler did not have the nerve to even try to make state torture legal.

TonyD · 06-29-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

On 2007-06-29 10:24, Archimedes wrote:
Actually it does Tony. You can blame Bliar for opting out of the various EU Justice clauses..... The sooner we become 100% European the better.

In fact, Arch, the European Court of Human Rights ('ECHR'), like the Convention principles it exists to enforce, isn't an arm of the EU but of the Council of Europe, an entirely separate and older body. (The EU, over which, as an entity, the ECHR has no jurisdiction, has drawn up a Charter of Fundamental Rights but its future and enforceability are tied up with ratification of the draft EU Constitution.)

However, the point is that in this instance, the ECHR has agreed with the UK government that the Convention does not inherently or immutably protect the right to silence. The argument it seems to have deployed in (part) justification, that citizens 'implicity accept certain responsibilities', is risible - by buying and riding a bike I implicitly gave up the right to silence if accused of a speeding offence?!!

Wombat · 06-29-2007, 02:00 PM

Under the Traffic Laws in Australia, If you are caught speeding by camera, the registered owner of the vehicle is sent the fine.
No need to incriminate yourself as you, the registered vehicle owner, are automatically responsible for all fines and poinst associated with the matter.
The owner then has the option to pay the fine or nominate who was driving.