Another case study. CASE STUDY; Suffolk constabulary vs Andrew Hill, September 2001. On the day in question Mr Hills car was caught speeding by a GATSO speed camera which measured the speed of the car as it went past the camera, however it took a picture of the rear of the car and so the drivers face etc was not in view of the camera. Suffolk constabulary identified the car as belonging to Mr Hill however because of the camera taking a picture of the rear of the car, they demanded that Mr Hill inform them of who was driving his car at the time and stated that he must provide this information under section 172 of the road traffic act 1988 (amended) and that if this information is not provided within 14 days of the date on the letter, court proceedings will begin for failure to provide the required information. Mr Hill responded to this letter from Suffolk constabulary, saying that he was not driving his car and was not in the location at the time, and for various reasons several people could have been driving his car at the time the picture was taken. He explained that from the picture he is no more able to identify the driver of the car as were the police. Mr Hill also quoted Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which states that he cannot be forced to incriminate himself if he was not there and cannot incriminate someone else if he doesnt know who was guilty Mr Hill received a letter from Suffolk constabulary a short while later a short while later informing him that no further action will be taken. For more information on this case refer to The Drivers Survival Handbook, Martin Thwaite. Disclaimer: None of the administrators of this page are in a position to offer formal legal advice and it is advised that you consult a legal professional (eg solicitor) where necessary.
Posted on: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:37:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015