header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 October 2007 / Susan Nash
Issue: 7291 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Human Rights Update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

SELF INCRIMINATION >>
ADVERSE Possession >>
INHERITANCE TAX >>
MARGIN OF Appreciation >>

RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

Relying on Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) which guarantees the right to a fair trial, the applicants in O’Halloran v United Kingdom (App No 15809/02); Francis v United Kingdom (App No 25624/02), (2007) The Times, 13 July complained that the nature of information sought by a notice of intended prosecution under the 1988 Road Traffic Act (RTA 1988), s 172 violated their right to remain silent and their privilege against self-incrimination. In both cases the applicants’ cars had been caught on speed camera.

As registered keepers of the vehicles they were served notices of an intention to prosecute and asked for the details of the driver on the relevant occasion, or information which would lead to the driver’s identification. Each applicant was further informed that failing to provide information was a criminal offence under RTA 1988, s 172. Although the first applicant admitted that he was the driver, he complained that

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
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll