MCN (Motor Cycle News) reports today of the 'Right to Silence' case that willbe heard at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg on 27thSeptember. The case challenges 'Section 172' in the Road Traffic Offenders Act1988 which requires registered keepers of vehicles and others to 'provideinformation' regarding the driver of the vehicle at the time of an allegedoffence.

Section 172 underpins ALL speed camera prosecutions, and millions of motoristseach year receive 'section 172' notices requiring them to identify the driverafter their vehicle has been caught on camera.

The problem arises when the notice arrives with the person who was driving atthe time of the alleged offence. If he fills in the form he is effectivelysigning a confession which violates his ancient 'right to silence'. If he failsto fill in the form (or otherwise provide the required information) he isguilty of a different offence.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Section 172 has been a useful legislative 'bigstick' capable of being used with wisdom and restraint to defend societyagainst dangerous criminals. It should never have been used against millions ofmotorists who may or may not have committed minor traffic offences. It has beenlike using the 'big stick' on your little sister. We have now arrived at thepoint where the 'big stick' will be taken away because it has been abused."

"The tragedy is that S172 has been a useful Police power in serious cases whereresponses could contribute to an ongoing investigation. Now that power will belost for one reason and one reason only; because it has been misused."

"Once S172 goes, that will be the end of speed camera prosecutions as we knowthem. And that can only be good news for road safety."

"As far as I can tell, no one seriously expects the government to win."