From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regarding the 'misuse' of the ECHR some of the ones that
have come to light or might be tried in the near future
(according to the press and some comments from the legal
profession) :-
Car owners refusing to declare who was driving when an
offence was caught on camera. Currently it is an offence
to fail to declare who was driving if a 'Notice of
Intended Prosecution' is served on the car owner. A
judge or magistarte in the North of England or Midlands
believed this might infringe the ECHR provisions of self
incrimination.
OK we may not like speed cameras but the effect of this
would be to make most Road Traffic Law unenforcable - you
might identify the vehicle but the owner would be under
no obligation to say who was driving when for instance
the the vehicle was used in a bank raid or a serious road
traffic offence and the owner could prove he was elsewhere.
An extreme example perhaps but one that could easily happen.
A convicted murderer who met and married his current wife
while he was in prison (she was a prison visitor or
somesuch) is appealing against the Home Office and a lower
court not allowing him to father a child by artificial
insemination using the ECHR provisions on the right to a
family.
The right to self expression provisions might make it legal
for school children to successfully prosecute schools for
being forced to wear school uniform. Some are even saying
that it could be used by prisoners to reject prison uniforms.
Apparently the Lord Chancellors office have put aside L60
million for cases under the ECHR. In Scotland people are
saying yes but only 13 of several hundred cases have been
lost by the Crown, however how much time and effort went
into fighting those cases?
OK much of this is people fighting cases to see how the
courts interprete the results but some of it is already
stretching credibility.
Regards
Jerry
--
Well, if they won 87 cases probably not much as they had
costs awarded to them.
Out of all the cases you mention only one has been decided,
and I personally think that was the right decision. I find
that speed cameras are excessively intrusive, and it's only
a short step away from the police seeing something going
on in a private residence with a CCTV (e.g. in a city
centre which backs onto an estate or something) and saying
that the person must identify themselves if they happened
to be starting a bonfire or something which is banned.
(Or cleaning your shotgun, and the CCTV operator
misidentifies it as a machinegun).
If the police pursued the driver and pulled him over,
then they would identify him no problem. If they saw
smoke coming from the garden and went to interview the
householder, they would identify him no problem.
Article 6 of the ECHR is one of the best pieces of
legislation ever to take effect in this country, not
least because the grossly unfair appeals process under
the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order is illegal under it.
Speed cameras turn due process on its head.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
