This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/5383726.stm

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Speed camera fight goes to Europe Europe to rule on speed cameras
(about 5 hours later)
European judges are being asked to rule in a case that could limit the use of speed cameras in the UK. The rights of millions of motorists in the UK are at stake as European judges consider a test case on speed cameras.
Campaigners claim requiring car owners to reveal details of who was driving a vehicle caught speeding on camera is a breach of their right to silence. Currently, the owners of vehicles caught speeding on camera are obliged to declare who was driving at the time.
Human rights group Liberty is backing two motorists in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg after the courts rejected their arguments. Two UK drivers, backed by human rights group Liberty, say this breaches their right to silence. The European Court of Human Rights is considering their case.
The Department for Transport said it would "vigorously" defend current laws. Road safety campaigners are divided over the case but ministers said they would "vigorously" defend current laws.
"The case essentially concerns the requirement for vehicle keepers to identify the driver of a vehicle identified on a speed camera," a spokesman said. Appeals rejected
Idris Francis was issued with a penalty notice after his car was caught on camera breaking a speed limit in June 2001.
This offends against a very important principle - namely that you should not have to incriminate yourself James WelchLiberty
The 66-year-old from Hampshire refused to reveal who was at the wheel at the time, so was fined for failing to sign a speeding notice.
In April 2000, a car belonging to Gerard O'Halloran, 72, from London, was caught by a speed camera.
He initially admitted the offence but later tried to withdraw his admission, claiming he signed the statement only because he feared he would be punished if he did not.
The pair appealed to British courts but were turned down. They eventually decided to take their cases to the European courts.
Evidence collection
Liberty's legal director James Welch said vehicle owners had two choices when presented with a speeding notice - to name the driver, or to refuse to provide information - both of which carried similar penalties.
Idris Francis was "disappointed" after UK courts rejected his appeal
"This offends against a very important principle - namely that you should not have to incriminate yourself," he said.
"You should not be made subject to a criminal penalty in order to make you provide information that then forms part of the prosecution case against you."
Mr Welch said the issue was less important in cases involving more serious charges - such as death by dangerous driving - because speed camera evidence would rarely be used.
He said that, if the case was successful, the government would have to find new ways of collecting evidence in speeding cases.
'Devastating effect'
The Department for Transport said the case concerned "the requirement for vehicle keepers to identify the driver of a vehicle identified on a speed camera".
"The applicants claim this requirement breaches the right against self-incrimination and thereby their right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights."The applicants claim this requirement breaches the right against self-incrimination and thereby their right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.
You should not be made subject to a criminal penalty in order to make you provide information that then forms part of the prosecution case against you James Welch of Liberty
"The UK government does not accept this claim.""The UK government does not accept this claim."
The case is being brought by Idris Francis, from West Meon, Hampshire, and Gerard O'Halloran, from London.
Their lawyer, James Welch of Liberty, said if their case was successful the government would have to find new ways of collecting evidence for motoring offences.
Under current laws a driver had two choices - either to admit they were driving, or to refuse to provide information on the driver, he said.
'Mass prosecutions'
If the driver conceded they were driving, he said it would amount to an admission and form part of the prosecution case against them.
And if the driver refused to provide information, they would be prosecuted under different laws.
Mr Welch said: "This offends against a very important principle - namely that you should not have to incriminate yourself.
"You should not be made subject to a criminal penalty in order to make you provide information that then forms part of the prosecution case against you."
The case renews the debate about speed cameras, with campaign groups on either side joining the argument over the case.The case renews the debate about speed cameras, with campaign groups on either side joining the argument over the case.
Paul Smith from the Safe Speed group, who believes cameras divert motorists' attention away from the roads, said British justice had been "undermined for the sake of nothing more than needless mass prosecutions".Paul Smith from the Safe Speed group, who believes cameras divert motorists' attention away from the roads, said British justice had been "undermined for the sake of nothing more than needless mass prosecutions".
Jools Townsend from the Brake charity, who supports speed cameras, said if the pair won their case it would have a "devastating effect" on road safety in the country.Jools Townsend from the Brake charity, who supports speed cameras, said if the pair won their case it would have a "devastating effect" on road safety in the country.
The court's ruling on section 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is not expected for several months.The court's ruling on section 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is not expected for several months.