OK, 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 been accused of.
reason he
He she may not be able to explain it without some other compromise or risk - that's why there always has been a right to silence.
After all, it's for the prosecution to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence.
guilty
You are correct - semantically, it's not the same as admitting guilt, but the problem here being the onus will be on the accused to prove their innocence, otherwise they'll be presumed guilty.
Can you imagine the convesation:-
Magistrate: Were you driving vehicle registration lovelove at time date YYYYYY in location ZZZZZZ? Accused: No. Magistrate: Then who was driving the vehicle at the time? Accused: I don't know.
Sure no doubt it would go on to explore who could have had access, but what do you honestly and realistically expect will happen?
If he she stays silent, the case will likely be deemed proven merely by merit of the GATSO photo(s). If he she denies driving at the time, and can't name anybody else, definitely, they'll likely either face the S.172 thingmy, or merely buttumed that they were and get the points and fine.
What if the registered owner genuinely doesn't know?
And what will happen? Do you think any further proof of guilt will be made other than the GATSO photo?
place at
In reality it will be - what do you expect will happen, otherwise?
The presumption will be guilt unless the accused can prove otherwise. Spot the mistake in all that.
thing
1. The salient thing you are missing is that the photographic evidence is creating the presumption of guilt, and the onus on the registered keeper to prove their innocence. 2. What if the registered keeper doesn't know who was driving at the time? And to follow on from that, what legal requirement is there for them to know this?
such I being
What do you think will happen if the registered keeper says that they were not driving at the time, and they don't know who was?
However, the practical application of GATSOs and FPNs mean that if you get one, the registered owner will be presumed guilty, unless they can prove otherwise, and the answer of "don't know" won't likely be tolerated. What's wrong with this picture?
offender
I'm sorry, but that's just bogus.
The registered keeper will be presumed guilty unless they can prove otherwise. There will likely be no other further burden of proof of his her guilt, than the GATSO photo(s).
And what do you think they are going to decide? What if he she says "I wasn't driving at the time, and I don't know who was."?
Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5065On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:06:48 -0000, Uno Hoo! Only for a Gatso offence, for any other offence if Plod turned up on my drive to ask questions about where...
Nope - because in this example, unless somebody can pretty strongly prove otherwise, not knowing won't be tolerated, and the photo will be deemed good enough.
All it proves, though, is that a car shown in the photograph, with a number plate showing a certain registration, triggered it - and in the reasonable buttumption, as you suggest, that it's accuracy is mostly undoubted. That doesn't prove anything about the validity of the car number plate, nor the driver.
