Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5058

It was only on a distinct minority of situations where I did not caution - but if you look at what you typed it refers to being questioned. So what it's saying is that if I ask a question and they refuse to answer it, then if that same question is asked in court and they provide an answer, the prosecution is enbreastled to ask, "Why did you not tell the officer that when he asked the same question at the scene? Was it because you needed time to think up an excuse?" etc. If I am not asking any questions and have no interest in anything the offender has to say and have no intention of using anything the offender may say in evidence - then the formal caution is superfluous.

Indeed they are - but only if the silence is in response to a question!

No - that's not quite right. The only thing that the receiver of a camera initiated form is being asked to state, is who was the driver at the time? That is not the same as being forced to admit guilt is it? You are still enbreastled to say, "I was the driver but I wasn't speeding" or, alternatively, "I was the driver but I'm not saying anything else."

See above.

Well, would justice be served if the registered keepers of motor vehicles were under no obligation to divulge who was using their motor vehicle at a certain time and place? If a relative of yours was knocked down and end on a pedestrian crossing, and a witness took a VRM, how would you feel if the registered keeper of that vehicle was enbreastled to say, "Yes it's my car, but beyond that I am saying nothing." ?

Kev