O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom

Last updated
O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom
Decided 29 June 2007 [1]
Full case name O'HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
[2007] ECHR 545, (2008) 46 EHRR 21
ChamberGrand Chamber
Language of proceedingsEnglish
Nationality of partiesBritish
Ruling
Automobile owners do not have the right to remain silent when asked by police to identify a speeding driver
Court composition
President
Jean-Paul Costa
Judges
Instruments cited
Article 6

O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom was a 2007 European Court of Human Rights case. The case revolved around a challenge to a requirement in the United Kingdom's Road Traffic Act 1988 that owners of a speeding vehicle provide police with the name of the driver. The plaintiffs, two British citizens, argued that the requirement was a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, under which there exists an implied right to remain silent. [2] In a departure from previous rulings on the issue, the court ruled in a 15–2 majority that the Road Traffic Act requirement was not unreasonable and that there was therefore no Human Rights violation.

Contents

Background

The cars of Gerard O'Halloran and Idris Francis were caught speeding in 2000 and 2001 respectively, with Francis' vehicle caught doing 47 mph in a 30 mph zone, and O'Halloran's doing 69 mph in a temporary 40 mph zone on the M11 motorway. Both violations were captured via speed cameras. [3] Under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the two were obliged to provide the names and addresses of the drivers when the police enquired of them via a notice of intended prosecution. Francis claimed he had the right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination under European law and refused to provide the information. [4] O'Halloran confirmed he was driving but later attempted to withdraw his confession at the Magistrates' court under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [2]

Both were convicted and fined. The magistrate refused to allow O'Halloran's confession to be withdrawn and he was fined a total of £250 including costs with six penalty points put on his driving licence. [5] He applied for a judicial review but this was denied. [3] Francis was convicted and fined a total of £1,000 including costs with three penalty points added to his licence. [6]

Case

Both car owners appealed to the European Court of Human Rights asserting they had an absolute right to silence under European law. [7] The British government opposed, on grounds previously outlined by the country's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that any implied right to silence in Article 6 must be balanced against the need to discourage dangerous driving. [8]

The court ruled in favour of the government, reasoning that vehicle owners and drivers had implicitly agreed to comply with legal regulations relating to motoring. They did rule that was compatible as the Road Traffic Act did allow for the defence that the accused would be able to show they did not know who was driving providing they had carried out due diligence in attempting to identify them. [2] In terms of the individual cases, the court ruled that O'Halloran's statement being admitted was lawful as prosecutors still had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed and the defendant was still entitled to call witnesses and supply their own evidence to counter it. [2] In Francis' case, the court ruled that his refusal to make a statement constituted the offence itself, so the question of his refusing to make the statement could not be used as evidence in the case. [2]

In summing up, the court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that drivers agreed to comply with regulations when they drove and that the information the police sought was minimal, thus there was no right to remain silent. [2] [5] 14 judges agreed with this with Judge Borrego Borrego concurring but arguing the case judgment should have been shorter. [9] Judges Pavlovschi and Myjer filed separate dissents. Pavlovschi argued that there was a breach of Article 6 and the appeal should have been upheld, arguing people would be forced to walk or use bikes in order to avoid risking a breach of their rights under the law. Myjer concurred with the dissent and elaborated upon them arguing that the state did not have a right to compel people to provide information in exchange for the right of driving a vehicle. [9]

Related Research Articles

European Convention on Human Rights International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

Speed limit Maximum legal speed of vehicles

Speed limits on road traffic, as used in most countries, set the legal maximum speed at which vehicles may travel on a given stretch of road. Speed limits are generally indicated on a traffic sign reflecting the maximum permitted speed - expressed as kilometres per hour (km/h) and/or miles per hour (mph). Speed limits are commonly set by the legislative bodies of national or provincial governments and enforced by national or regional police and judicial authorities. Speed limits may also be variable, or in some places nonexistent, such as on most of the Autobahnen in Germany.

Newburgh Heights, Ohio Village in Ohio, United States

Newburgh Heights is a village in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, United States. The population was 2,167 at the 2010 census.

Traffic enforcement camera Camera for detecting motoring offenses

A traffic enforcement camera is a camera which may be mounted beside or over a road or installed in an enforcement vehicle to detect motoring offenses, including speeding, vehicles going through a red traffic light, vehicles going through a toll booth without paying, unauthorized use of a bus lane, or for recording vehicles inside a congestion charge area. It may be linked to an automated ticketing system.

Traffic ticket Type of notice issued by a law enforcement official

A traffic ticket is a notice issued by a law enforcement official to a motorist or other road user, indicating that the user has violated traffic laws. Traffic tickets generally come in two forms, citing a moving violation, such as exceeding the speed limit, or a non-moving violation, such as a parking violation, with the ticket also being referred to as a parking citation, or parking ticket.

Red light camera

A red light camera is a type of traffic enforcement camera that photographs a vehicle that has entered an intersection after the traffic signal controlling the intersection has turned red. By automatically photographing vehicles that run red lights, the photo is evidence that assists authorities in their enforcement of traffic laws. Generally the camera is triggered when a vehicle enters the intersection after the traffic signal has turned red.

Many countries have adopted a penalty point or demerit point system under which a person’s driving license is cancelled or suspended based on the number of points accumulated by them over a period of time because of the traffic offences or infringements committed by them in that period. The demerit points schemes of each jurisdiction varies. These demerit schemes are usually in addition to fines or other penalties which may be imposed for a particular offence or infringement, or after a prescribed number of points have been accumulated.

The European Convention of Human Rights Act 2003 is an act of the Irish parliament, the Oireachtas, which gave further effect to the European Convention on Human Rights in Irish law. It is substantially similar to the UK's Human Rights Act 1998.

Nick Freeman is an English solicitor best known as a celebrity defence lawyer, specialising in traffic and speeding offences. He is the owner of Manchester-based legal practice Freeman & Co.

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver.

Driving in the United Kingdom is governed by various legal powers and in some cases is subject to the passing of a driving test. The government produces a Highway Code that details the requirements for all road users, including drivers. Unlike most other countries in the world, UK traffic drives on the left.

Advisory speed limit Speed recommendation by a governing body

An advisory speed limit is a speed recommendation by a governing body, used when it may be non-obvious to the driver that the safe speed is below the legal speed. It is a posting which either approximates the Basic Speed Law or rule or is based on a maximum g-force exerted at a specific speed. Advisory speed limits are often set in areas with many pedestrians, such as in city centres and outside schools, and on difficult stretches of roads, such as on tight corners or through roadworks. While travelling above the advisory speed limit is not illegal per se, it may be negligence per se and liability for any collisions that occur as a result of traveling above the limit can be placed partially or entirely on the person exceeding the advisory speed limit.

Intelligent speed assistance (ISA), or intelligent speed adaptation, also known as alerting, and intelligent authority, is any system that ensures that vehicle speed does not exceed a safe or legally enforced speed. In case of potential speeding, a human driver can be alerted, or the speed reduced automatically.

The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination. It is used on any occasion when it is considered the person(s) being spoken to is under suspicion of having committed one or more criminal offences and consequently thus potentially being subject to criminal proceedings.

Speed limit enforcement Effort made by appropriately empowered authorities to improve driver compliance with speed limits

Speed limits are enforced on most public roadways by authorities, with the purpose to improve driver compliance with speed limits. Methods used include roadside speed traps set up and operated by the police and automated roadside 'speed camera' systems, which may incorporate the use of an automatic number plate recognition system. Traditionally, police officers used stopwatches to measure the time taken for a vehicle to cover a known distance. More recently, radar guns and automated in-vehicle systems have come into use.

Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom Overview of the road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom

Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom is the action taken by appropriately empowered authorities to attempt to persuade road vehicle users to comply with the speed limits in force on the UK's roads. Methods used include those for detection and prosecution of contraventions such as roadside fixed speed cameras, average speed cameras, and police-operated LIDAR speed guns or older radar speed guns. Vehicle activated signs and Community Speed Watch schemes are used to encourage compliance. Some classes of vehicles are fitted with speed limiters and intelligent speed adaptation is being trialled in some places on a voluntary basis.

<i>Cadder v HM Advocate</i>

Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43 is a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the way in which police in Scotland detained suspects was not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and was therefore unlawful in terms of the Scotland Act 1998.

<i>Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom</i> (2010)

Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 338 was heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in Strasbourg on 16 March 2010 on appeal from the European Court of Rights (ECHR), Fourth Section before Jean-Paul Costa (President), Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Peer Lorenzen, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Karel Jungwiert, Nina Vajić, Dean Spielmann, Renate Jaeger, Danutė Jočienė, Ineta Ziemele, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Päivi Hirvelä, Luis López Guerra, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva.

<i>MJELR v Rettinger</i> Irish Supreme Court case

MJELR v Rettinger[2010] IESC 45, [2010] 3 IR 783, was a case in which the Irish Supreme Court ruled that to resist the application of a European Arrest Warrant on the basis that it would result in treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the wanted individual must offer substantial grounds to believe that he or she would be exposed to a real risk of such treatment.

Slovenian Disability Rights Association is a disability rights organization in Slovenia. Its goals are to enhance the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to assist persons with disabilities through awareness raising and impact litigation. Drupis was founded in 2012.

References

  1. ↑ "O'Halloran & Francis v. UK European Court of Human Rights". Motor Defence Solicitors. 2007-06-29. Retrieved 2022-01-11.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "O'HALLORAN AND FRANCIS - 15809/02 [2007] ECHR 545 (29 June 2007)". Bailii.org. Retrieved 2022-01-11.
  3. 1 2 "Drivers lose speed camera test case in Strasbourg court". The Guardian. 2007-06-30. Retrieved 2022-01-11.
  4. ↑ "Motorists lose speed camera case". BBC News. 2007-06-29. Retrieved 2022-01-11.
  5. 1 2 "No right to silence in speeding cases". Irish Independent. Retrieved 2022-01-11.
  6. ↑ "Speed camera pair lose final appeal". Reuters. 29 June 2007.
  7. ↑ "Speeding drivers lose appeal to human rights court". The Guardian. 2007-06-29. Retrieved 2022-01-11.
  8. ↑ Birdling, Malcolm (2008). "Self-Incrimination Goes to Strasbourg: O'Halloran and Francis v United Kingdom". The International Journal of Evidence & Proof. 12: 58–63. doi:10.1350/ijep.2008.12.1.287. S2CID   147291245.
  9. 1 2 "O'HALLORAN AND FRANCIS - 15809/02 [2007] ECHR 544 (29 June 2007)". Bailii.org. Retrieved 2022-01-11.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.