(Grand Chamber) Each defendant claimed that the obligation imposed on them to name the driver of a motor vehicle caught by a traffic camera prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
Held: The application failed. The nature of the obligation did not destroy the right to remain silent or the privilege against self incrimination. It did not follow from previous cases that any direct compulsion will automatically result in a violation: ‘While the right to a fair trial under article 6 is an unqualified right, what constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case.’
Citations:
15809/02, (2008) 46 EHRR 21, [2007] ECHR 545, Times 13-Jul-2007
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Road Traffic
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254320
