Jack Straw' View

[David Swarbrick]

In message <CkgtLfA$QfY5EwvE@linx.org>, Roland Perry <roland@linx.net>
writes
>In article <611408FA8FACD2118A670008C75D64FC042C4033@euktcnt010.ericsson
>.se>, Adam Atkinson (ETL) <adam.atkinson@etl.ericsson.se> writes
>>The movement of the _car_ is being monitored. Whilst you may
>>know who the car belongs to, you don't know who is currently
>>driving it.
>
>What about the reverse burden of proof when captured by a Gatso? They
>assume it's the registered keeper driving, and getting the speeding
>fine, unless you can prove otherwise. This assumption that the keeper is
>the driver would work for a great many surveillance cases, too.

See the Human Rights Act. The notices served on registered keepers have
been thrown out in Scotland as a breach of the right to a fair trial by
infringing the subsidiary right against self incrimination.

-- 
David Swarbrick, Solicitor. Computer and Internet Law and Contracts
david@swarb.freeuk.com T: +44(0)1484 722531 F: +44(0)1484 716617
Law-index of 11,200+ case summaries at www.swarb.co.uk