Word of the day: lacuna
In the UK, if a speed camera records a speeding car, the owner of the car will be sent a formal request, under s172 of the Road Traffic Act, asking for details of who was driving the car at that time. In the usual case of the owner being the driver, and admitting to driving at the time, he will then be prosecuted for speeding.
This has, of course, been the subject of much controversy, as it appears to go against the right of an individual not to incriminate himself. For a while there was a ruling by the Scottish courts that this was in breach of EC law, but this was later overruled at appeal.
For several years, more savvy solicitors have been advising clients faced with s172 requests to return the form stating they were the driver, but do not sign it.
Under rules of evidence, an unsigned admission cannot be used as evidence – and thus the form cannot be used as part of the prosecution for speeding. But, by returning the form, the law regarding s172 has been complied with fully: although the registered keeper is under a duty to identify the driver he is not required to make a witness statement to that effect.
This strategy worked in many cases, but had not been proven to do so, until last December, when the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of John Pickford, on exactly these grounds, stating that whatever distaste the courts may have for such a lacuna, it is not the court’s place to remedy the problem, but parliament’s…
