O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC]

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 98

June 2007

O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC] - 15809/02

Judgment 29.6.2007 [GC]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Criminal charge

Fair hearing

Obligation for the registered keeper of a vehicle to provide information identifying the driver where a road-traffic offence is suspected: no violation

Facts: Under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 the registered keeper of a vehicle can be required to provide information as to the identity of the driver where certain road-traffic offences are alleged to have been committed. It is an offence not to supply the information unless the keeper is able to show that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the driver's identity. In separate incidents the applicants' vehicles were caught on speed cameras driving in excess of the speed limit. They were subsequently asked to identify the driver or risk prosecution. the first applicant admitted to being the driver in his case and was convicted of speeding after making an unsuccessful attempt to have his confession excluded as evidence. He was fined and his licence was endorsed. The second applicant invoked his right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination. He was convicted under section 172. He received a fine and his licence was endorsed.

Law: The Court did not accept the applicants' argument that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself were absolute rights. In order to determine whether the essence of those rights was infringed, it focused on the nature and degree of compulsion used to obtain the evidence, the existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedure, and the use to which any material so obtained was put.

(a) Nature and degree of the compulsion – While the compulsion was of a direct nature anyone who chose to own or drive a car knew that they were subjecting themselves to a regulatory regime, imposed because the possession and use of cars was recognised to have the potential to cause grave injury. Those who chose to keep and drive cars could be taken to have accepted certain responsibilities and obligations including the obligation, in the event of the suspected commission of a road traffic offence, to inform the authorities of the identity of the driver on that occasion. Lastly, the nature of the inquiry the police were authorised to undertake was limited. Section 172 applied only where the driver was alleged to have committed a relevant offence and it authorised the police to require information only as to the identity of the driver.

(b) Safeguards – No offence was committed if the keeper of the vehicle showed that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have known who the driver of the vehicle was. The offence was therefore not one of strict liability and the risk of unreliable admissions was negligible.

(c) Use to which the statements were put – Although the first applicant's statement that he was the driver of his car was ruled admissible as evidence of that fact after his unsuccessful attempt to exclude it, the prosecution were nevertheless still required to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the first applicant had been entitled to give evidence and call witnesses if he wished. The identity of the driver was only one element in the offence of speeding, and there was no question of a conviction arising in the underlying proceedings in respect solely of the information obtained as a result of section 172. In the second applicant's case the underlying proceedings were never pursued as he had refused to make a statement. Accordingly, the question of the use of his statement in criminal proceedings did not arise, as his refusal to make a statement was not used as evidence: it constituted the offence itself.

Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the special nature of the regulatory regime and the limited nature of the information sought by a notice under section 172, the essence of the applicants' right to remain silent and their privilege against self-incrimination had not been destroyed.

Conclusion: no violation (fifteen votes to two).

© 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

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy