The point being that it erodes the right to silence right from the beginning of the proceedings.
So. If you caution and the driver states that he prefers to say nothing at the moment and you then ask him a question that he does not answer, his defence is already prejudiced.
The fact that it is not sufficient evidence to convict *is* correct.
Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5061I'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...
Which you MUST answer or be found guilty of failing to provide the information.
Err... yes, in practice it is.
And you would be summarily found guilty. In either case you are NOT allowed to stay silent.
Yes. See above. It doesn't exist.
Yes, because a photo of a licence plate that bears a number that happens to be the same as one that is registered to you by DVLA is not evidence. It does not meet the requirements for evidence hence the need for the driver to incriminate himself. If he refuses to do so he is summarily found guilty of a different offence which removes his right to silence and punshied as if the original offence had been proved.
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...
The point is that just because a vehicle was allegedly seen at a certain time and place it does not mean the registered keeper is guilty of an offence whether it be speeding or anything else.
The driver of a car caught by a camera is buttumed to be guilty unless he can prove otherwise and that is blatant corruption of one of the most basic tenets of our system.
-- Mark Foster, Brighton, Suslove, UK PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" Driving, HMSO
