Police demand riders to admit to alleged offences

[Geordie Stu]

This appeared in last weeks MCN. Some have strong views agaisnt MCN. Is there an element of truth in this article.

Police say they can demand riders admit to an alleged offence, then decide what offence.

They have been accused of abusing the law with the tactic, used against a number of motorcyclists.

MCN revealed how riders had received police letters saying they were suspected of an offence but withholding details of the allegation. The letters said they must admit who was riding at the time.

Now police have admitted they sent the letters before deciding what offence to accuse the riders of.

The letters cite Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, which makes it an offence carrying six points and a £1000 fine not to identify the rider. Police routinely use it to find out who was driving or riding a vehicle caught by speed camera.

But the requirement to tell the police only applies when the rider is ‘alleged to be guilty of an offence’.

Northumbria’s Sergeant Dave Clement admitted there were no specific allegations against riders in this case.

“I would imagine the investigation needs to take place before we determine exactly what offences,” he said.

He said the force had acted within the law. “The riders and drivers of these vehicles are under investigation so we need their details.”

But road traffic solicitor Robert Dobson said: “They cannot simply write to a registered vehicle keeper asking for the details of the driver when they have not identified the offence of which that driver is allegedly guilty.

“I would say it’s an abuse of the legislation, which wasn’t drafted for this purpose.

“It’s a pure and simple fishing exercise.”

The letters were sent to nine riders who took part in motorway slow-rides organised by the Motor Cycle Action Group over planned EU measures to prevent bike modifying.

In a separate action, Northumbria Police stopped 45 motorcyclists during the protest, on the A1 in Washington, for allegedly using their bikes in an anti-social manner. Riders were issued warnings that a repeat within 12 months could lead the machine to be seized.

[Jon_W]

Is MCN..... must be true....... :-?





Another wonderful article of truth!!! ;D

[Squashed_Fly]

Presumably there must at least an element of truth to this.

The thing that concerns me, is the fact you can get a fine for not revealing the drivers/riders details.

Whatever happened to 'the right to remain silent, but anything said can be used against you'?

[Jon_W]

Presumably there must at least an element of truth to this.

The thing that concerns me, is the fact you can get a fine for not revealing the drivers/riders details.




Probably one grain somwhere...

As to not revealing the culprit, withholding information where a crime has been committed is perverting the course of justice...

The issue with Speed cameras asking for you to admit your crime is an old chesnut. Not new.

[Thorkill_The_Tall]

Presumably there must at least an element of truth to this.

The thing that concerns me, is the fact you can get a fine for not revealing the drivers/riders details.

Whatever happened to 'the right to remain silent, but anything said can be used against you'?

The answer to your question is that it disappeared 1994.
This (http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-suspects/the-rights-of-suspects-in-the-police-station/curtailment-of-the-right-to-silence.html) explains everything.
The last two lines are very interesting.

[Snowy]

Presumably there must at least an element of truth to this.

The thing that concerns me, is the fact you can get a fine for not revealing the drivers/riders details.

Whatever happened to 'the right to remain silent, but anything said can be used against you'?

You have the right to remain silent but that cannot be used as a defense not to give evidence if you are aware that an offense has been commited. If you remain silent and the police can prove you were aware that an offense has been commited and you deliberatly withhold that information, you are yourself guilty of an offense. If you remain silent and were not aware of any offense (and cannot be proved otherwise) you are not commiting an offense.

Thats my understanding however will bow to others greater knowledge than mine in this regard.

[Geordie Stu]

It's that word "Alleged" "asserted to be true or to exist"

Do the Police actually any evidence to prove any offense was committed. Our are they trying to get riders to admit to something they haven't done, by saying you have & then rider thinks oh maybe I did & in that incriminating yourself.

::)

[Squashed_Fly]

Presumably there must at least an element of truth to this.

The thing that concerns me, is the fact you can get a fine for not revealing the drivers/riders details.

Whatever happened to 'the right to remain silent, but anything said can be used against you'?

You have the right to remain silent but that cannot be used as a defense not to give evidence if you are aware that an offense has been commited. If you remain silent and the police can prove you were aware that an offense has been commited and you deliberatly withhold that information, you are yourself guilty of an offense. If you remain silent and were not aware of any offense (and cannot be proved otherwise) you are not commiting an offense.

Thats my understanding however will bow to others greater knowledge than mine in this regard.




You probably won't believe I'm about to say this....

But I'll take your word for that as I don't know any better! [smiley=engel017.gif]

Thankfully, the only involvement I have ever had with the police was my Bikesafe course!

Oh, and the time that we got pulled over in my brothers car in Lincolnshire, as his car matched the description of one seen leaving a house burglary, and they wanted to search it.

Not a problem you might think, except that the reason we were in Linclolnshire is we were helping my Dad move house up there, and had the car full of his stuff :o :o :o :o

Thankfully, once my dad had realised, and turned around the removal van and come back to help us explain, the copper saw the funny side and let us go! ;D ;D

[Marmalade]

It would appear to be true.

On another bike forum some members have asked for advice after receiving these fishing letters

[Wes]

Hmm its an old tactic this one, pull you over and try to collude you into giving evidence against yourself, personally i offer nothing, nod a lot, hands behind the back and never call the officer mate. You usually find that if you start to get a rollocking you rarely get booked ;)

[DaytonaDog]

Presumably there must at least an element of truth to this.

The thing that concerns me, is the fact you can get a fine for not revealing the drivers/riders details.

Whatever happened to 'the right to remain silent, but anything said can be used against you'?

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.

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.

[Gerry]

Swot I thought ;D

G

[Geordie Stu]

I think that answer pretty much sums it up.

[Karl]

You can only be arrested if you break the law, an offence is a money making exercise. You do not have to give your name etc, unless you are under arrest. Swat up on the law, and you will be fine. Cant think of a good link right now, but www.yourstrawman.com is an eye opener.

[DaytonaDog]

You can only be arrested if you break the law, an offence is a money making exercise. You do not have to give your name etc, unless you are under arrest. Swat up on the law, and you will be fine. Cant think of a good link right now, but www.yourstrawman.com is an eye opener.

Actually if you have committed an offence, irrespective of what the offence is, you can be arrested if you fail to provide your name and/or an address suitable for the service of a summons.

For example: if you were stopped for speeding (summary offence) and the officer wished to issue you with a ticket but you refused to provide your name or address the officer has the power to arrest you for that offence. This is because if you subsequently decided to not pay the ticket which is your right, a summons will be issues for a court hearing and the correct name and address is required. I would strongly advise against refusing to give your name or address or a fail name or address if you are stopped by police and you are suspected of committing an offence.

[SupeRDel]

I think that answer pretty much sums it up.

Does that me someone actually reads long postings.. :o

Most forum readers I know give up on a topic after a few lines..........

[redken1]

I think that answer pretty much sums it up.

Does that me someone actually reads long postings.. :o

Most forum readers I know give up on a topic after a few lines..........

Perhaps that explains why so many people misinterpret specific laws, because they don’t take the trouble to read informative posts like the submission from Chris. ;)

[DaytonaDog]

Yes it was a long post, and apologies for that, but unfortunately the complexities of the law cant always be summed up in a couple of sentences. Having read some of the previous posts I felt it appropriate to firstly puts minds at rest regarding the MCN article and secondly to clear up a few ambiguities and inaccuracies etc etc. I'd hate for somebody to fall foul of the law due to a lack of knowledge or misinformation.