Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: O Hallaran Case
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Gather
What is the date of the O'Hallaran case to be held in the ECHR? I heard it was February.
Bluedart
QUOTE (Gather @ Sat, 24 Feb 2007 - 20:02) *
What is the date of the O'Hallaran case to be held in the ECHR? I heard it was February.

The O'Hallaran case hase been heard last September, we are now awaiting Judgement or fudgement, depends how it comes out.
H&Ps
as for the date well that's anyone's guess - february it won't be that's for sure.......
kbird
The ECHR told me two weeks ago, that the judgement will be made at Easter.....
andy_foster
QUOTE (kbird @ Sun, 25 Feb 2007 - 08:33) *
The ECHR told me two weeks ago, that the judgement will be made at Easter.....


Can you expand on this?
Who told you? Was this by phone, letter or email?
What exactly did they say?

Someone else was told that it would probably be late March or early April (Easter), but gave the clear impression of being no more than a guesstimate.
kbird
I was told by the ECHR direct following a phone enquiry
obmil
can someone briefly explain what the outcome of this case will actually mean for the average motorist trying to get off a speeding ticket ?

ta.
jonnyb71
Yeah, I would appreciate a quick run-down also on what an Easter verdict might mean. If I send a PACE letter now and the judgement is against O'Halloran at Easter, will that mean I could be done for both speeding and S.172 by the time my summons comes in 6 months' time?

Cheers, J
The Rookie
I don't see how, know, Jones has established a written reply satisfies S172, the UK gov't aren't challenging that, nor is O'Halloran, so it shouldn't come into the ruling at all, its just whether the 'information' request under S172 can then be used as a self confession that is the heart of the matter.

Simon
fuzzybear
QUOTE (obmil @ Mon, 12 Mar 2007 - 14:48) *
can someone briefly explain what the outcome of this case will actually mean for the average motorist trying to get off a speeding ticket ?

ta.

I second that, can someone point me to a thread or a sticky, or summarise here, I hear alot of chat about this case on these forums but don't actually know what the implications are if this is judged either way.
The Rookie
Have a look at the PACE sticky...
neil3841
QUOTE (jonnyb71 @ Mon, 12 Mar 2007 - 15:03) *
Yeah, I would appreciate a quick run-down also on what an Easter verdict might mean. If I send a PACE letter now and the judgement is against O'Halloran at Easter, will that mean I could be done for both speeding and S.172 by the time my summons comes in 6 months' time?

Cheers, J



Short answer to this one is No it may help either in keeping pace out of it or the goverment introducing it for speeding depending which way it goes but it will not hurt and you cannot be done for S172 following a pace letter smile.gif
hortz
QUOTE (fuzzybear @ Tue, 13 Mar 2007 - 10:00) *
QUOTE (obmil @ Mon, 12 Mar 2007 - 14:48) *
can someone briefly explain what the outcome of this case will actually mean for the average motorist trying to get off a speeding ticket ?

ta.

I second that, can someone point me to a thread or a sticky, or summarise here, I hear alot of chat about this case on these forums but don't actually know what the implications are if this is judged either way.


See the following which I posted on another thread a couple of weeks ago:

"A fundamental principle of Human Rights law is the right to silence/right not to incriminate oneself. Another fundamental of British law is the requirement to caution a suspect before any information given/statement made can be used against them in court.

For example, Joe Bloggs is arrested on suspicion of burglarly. The police officer should caution him before interview commences (i.e. "You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so but anything you do say may be given in evidence"). If the officer in charge has not done this then, technically, Joe can make a full and frank confession and still plead not guilty as the confession is not admissible as evidence. The case should be thrown out.

If the caution is given, Joe simply invokes his right to silence and says nothing. This is a fundamental right under British law. The police must then do some proper police work and go out and collect the evidence to prove him guilty.

Let a motorist stray over the speed limit, however, and the government would have us believe that those rights are completely removed. Their S172 identity request forces the recipient to identify the driver under threat of criminal penalty if they do not. They do not have the right to silence, as those suspected of far more serious offences do. They do not have the right to a caution. They are required to present a signed and dated confession to the police to be used as evidence. Clearly, this is a quite ridiculous state of affairs.

The police case is that a caution is not required as they are merely requesting information from the driver. They are correct. A caution does not need to be administered in order to request information. However, where this information is to be used as evidence in court proceedings, then clearly it does.

The difference for anyone who's unclear:

The police go out looking for evidence of Joe's burglary. They ask the next-door neighbour if he saw anything. The neighbour says "Oh yes it was Joe Bloggs from round the corner and I'll give you a signed statement and appear in court to testify". This is evidence

The neighbour is question says "Well I saw Joe Bloggs do it but as I'm scared of him I am not testifying in court or giving a statement". This is information The one can be used against the suspect in criminal proceedings, the other cannot.

If a confession is to be used as evidence in court then a caution must have previously been given. If a caution is given, the accused simply invokes their right to silence. The whole practice of forcing a suspect to confess under threat of criminal penalty is a blatant breach of the accused's rights. The only justification for doing so is that it is overwhelmingly in the public interest (i.e. the detention of terror suspects). Bearing in mind that road fatalities have INCREASED since these glorified moneyboxes began pervading our roads, I would say getting rid of them is overwhelmingly in the public interest! "



Basically. if the ECHR case goes the right way then evidence obtained under compulsion will be ruled illegal (i.e. the forced completion of an NIP or the PACE statement). This would mean that not only would any future prosecutions, certainly with GATSO pictures but many from the LTI 20/20 or truvelo forward facing camera, not be able to succeed, but anyone who has pleaded not guilty on this basis and been convicted should be able to appeal and have their points removed and fine refunded.
davepoth
If the judgement falls our way, it will mean that we can no longer be asked to supply the name of the driver under pain of penalty for not supplying. By doing that the courts will no longer be able to ascertain the driver in the majority of cases, so I would think it is likely that for speed camera offences we will be looking at a bigger fine and no points, for the registered keeper, unless there is good evidence that it was not them driving, from now on. That's the system currently employed in several other EU nations.
fuzzybear
Following on from this my girlfriend filled out my NIP and sent it off.. does that mean im stuffed, as im now getting harrassing mails warning me of prosecution if i fail to reply, am i beyond PACE?
neil3841
QUOTE (fuzzybear @ Tue, 13 Mar 2007 - 13:35) *
Following on from this my girlfriend filled out my NIP and sent it off.. does that mean im stuffed, as im now getting harrassing mails warning me of prosecution if i fail to reply, am i beyond PACE?



If you were driving send pace if you were not driving send a letter telling them you were not driving and that you do not know who was as it is not your car. DO NOT LIE if you were driving send pace statement but if you havn't allready you should put this in its own thread
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.