The current caution under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is 'You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be used in evidence'. The caution should be given before a person is questioned/interviewed about their suspected involvement in an offence be it a criminal offence or a road traffic offence irrespective of whether you have been arrested or not.Originally Posted by Squashed_Fly
The requirement to provide police with the name and address of a rider/driver comes from Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act and only relates to a limited number of road traffic offences, i.e. speeding, careless driving, failing to stop at an accident. The requirement for the riders/drivers details has been held to not amount to questioning or interviewing about involvement in an suspected offence therefore the caution is not required and therefore the right to silence is not relevant in these circumstances. An good example of where Section 172 is utilised is to identify hit and run drivers etc etc. Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act has been challenged by numerous solicitors and celebrities including the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that it infringed a defendants right against self-incrimination and it has been unsuccessfully challenged. It is NOT an admission of guilt and a driver would not be successfully prosecuted purely on the basis that they had confirmed who was the driver at the time of a suspected offence.
As mentioned earlier S172 was subject to a legal challenge in the run up to the Human Rights Act 1998. It was argued by some that the reuiqrements of Section 172 infringed a defendant's right against self incrimination under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The issue was addressed by the House of Lords in Brown v Stott, where their Lordships held that the crucial issues were whether S172:
represented a disporportionate response to the high incidence of death and injury on the roads by reason of the misuse of cars; and/or
undermined the right to a fair trial when the drivers admission was relied on at trial.
Their lordships held that the European Convention had to be read as balancing community rights with individual rights. The answer to both issues above was no because (among other things):
The answer required a keeper by s172 could not itself incriminate the suspect since it was not an offence to merely to drive a car.
All those who owned or drove cars had subjected themselves to a regulatory regime of which s172 was a part.
Taking the above into consideration personal it casts some doubt into the credibility of the MCN article (there's a surprise) on the basis that even if the rider of a bike confirmed they were driving the bike at the time of the alleged incident, that in itself was NOT prove of guilt or admission of an offence and the police would have to rely on other information to secure a conviction.
Jon W - apologise for being anal but withholding evidence does not amount to perverting the course of justice. It would more likely amount to obstruction of justice. See below@
Perverting the course of justice
In English, Canadian or Irish, perversion of the course of justice is a criminal offence in which someone acts in a manner that in some way prevents justice being served on either themselves or on a third party. Perverting the course of justice is an offence in common law. It carries a theoretical maximum sentence of life imprisonment, although no sentence of more than 10 years has been handed down in the past one hundred years[where?].
Perversion of the course of justice takes the form of one of three acts:
•Fabrication or disposal of evidence
•Intimidating a witness or juror
•Threatening a witness or juror
It is also criminal to conspire with another to pervert the course of justice and to intend to pervert the course of justice.
Similar crimes include perjury, contempt of court and obstruction of justice.
