header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 October 2007 / Seamus Burns
Issue: 7293 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Good to talk?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Is there a right to remain silent in speeding offences? Seamus Burns investigates

In O’Halloran and another v United Kingdom (App Nos 15809/02 and 25624/02) [2007] All ER (D) 07 (Jul), the first applicant, Gerard O’Halloran, the registered keeper of a car, was caught on a speed camera driving at 69mph on a motorway where the speed limit was temporarily 40mph.
The police had subsequently served a notice of intention to prosecute (NIP) on O’Halloran, informing him they intended to institute proceedings against the driver of the vehicle, and asked him to provide the full name and address of the driver of the vehicle on the relevant occasion within 28 days. Failure to provide this information was a criminal offence and would result in a fine of £1,000 and three to six penalty points, under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988), s 172. The applicant answered the NIP confirming he was the driver at the relevant time and was convicted of speeding.

By contrast, Idris Francis was the registered keeper of a car  caught

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll