I'm sorry - I don't follow you. The only value in the right to silence is the right not to self-convict. If I am not using any verbals that the alleged offender provides - then I am not affecting that in any way. He still, effectively, has the right to silence.
Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5062OK, that's your opinion. However, somebody may prefer to remain silent for all host of other reasons that are entirely unconnected with what they've...
Yes - and personally I am quite happy with that because I can see no reason why an innocent person would not be anxious to explain his innocence. If he has a particular reason for remaining silent then he can explain that in court if his silence is called into question.
Sorry but I disagree. Admitting that you were the driver at the time an alleged offence occurred is *not* the same as admitting that you are guilty of that offence.
You are *not* allowed to remain silent about who was driving - you *are* allowed to remain silent about the circumstances of the offence.
It does! Admitting that you were driving the car at a certain time and place is not akin to admitting that you were guilty of an offence that occurred at that time and place.
Agreed. It is merely an indication of a suspicion that the car in question was at a particular place at a particular time. It would be the same for any offence involving a motor vehicle where a human witness had noted down a VRM.
The driver is *not* incriminating himself - he is merely accepting that he was the driver of the car at a particular time and place. Not the same thing at all.
If he refuses to do so he is summarily
There are a number of responses that the owner of a car can make under such circumstances: 1. I am the owner of this vehicle but at the time and place notified, I was driving it elsewhere. 2. I am the ownere of this vehicle, I was driving it at the place and time stated but I was not speeding. 3.I am the owner of the vehicle but I was not driving it at the time - it was being driven by (x) or; several people have the use of this vehicle and at the time and place notified I do not know who was in it. etc. etc. Responding to this notice is *not* an admission of guilt.
Agreed absolutely.
Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5063Look - in *any* alleged offence or crime, when a suspect is being questioned, the police do *not* just take the first answer they are given as being...
No he is not buttumed to be guilty - any more than any other alleged offender is buttumed to be guilty. He can plead not guilty and produce his evidence. The prosecution produce their evidence. The magistrates decide. This is the way the system works with *any* alleged offence is it not? The only difference is, as I've already pointed out in another response, the camera is virtually infallible because of its in-built corroboration system.
Kev
