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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll