CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 octobre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 79 October 2005 O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 15809/02 Decision 25.10.2005 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Self-incrimination: requirement to disclose the name and address of the driver of a vehicle caught exceeding a speed limit: admissible   The applicants are the registered keepers of cars which were caught by a speed camera driving over the permitted speed limit. They received a notice of intention to prosecute (NIP) informing them that proceedings were envisaged against the driver of the vehicle and, in this connection, were asked to furnish the full name and address of the driver at the relevant time. The first applicant confirmed that he had been the driver. When he was committed to trial he sought to exclude the confession he had made in response to the notice of intention to prosecute. He was convicted for the actual speeding offence. The second applicant refused to give the name of the driver invoking his right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination. He was also convicted and fined, and stated that the fine imposed was substantially heavier than that which would have been imposed if he had pleaded guilty to the speeding offence. Admissible under Article 6.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes