It is very easy to fall foul of speed limits and get caught on speed cameras. Before you know it, you can end up in a position where you may be at risk of losing your licence. So are there any loopholes?

Over the years we have raised a number of arguments with Magistrates to try and avoid conviction for our clients.

A possible loophole that had been exposed was firmly closed by a Privy Council ruling in the case of Margaret Brown (05/12/00). Prior to their ruling there had been lower court decisions in both Scotland and England, which indicated that asking drivers to confirm whether they were the driver of the car at the time of an offence was contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and was therefore illegal. Without such evidence many speed camera prosecutions simply failed as the driver could not be established.

However the five law lords, sitting as the Privy Council, which is now the final court of appeal on devolution cases from Scotland, ruled that such evidence is admissible, as the driver's right to a fair trial and privacy has to be balanced with the right to safety of the wider community.

The decision is binding on both the courts in England and Scotland.

A further loophole argument revolved around the signing of the Notice of Intended Prosecution. If you return your form unsigned then as you have not signed the document its contents are not considered a "statement in writing" for the purposes of Section 12 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Accordingly it is inadmissible as evidence under the Road Traffic Offenders Act. BUT if the form was completed by you then it could amount to a confession under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). This has been tested in a number of cases and been thrown out and the unsigned forms loophole has now also been closed by the Idris Francis Case.

Idris Francis was challenging his conviction for failing to sign a notice served on him for speeding. His barristers argued his conviction should be quashed on a point of law - that there was no legal obligation for him to sign the form. The judges rejected his appeal. Mr Francis took his case to the European Court claiming that the camera laws breached his rights to silence under the Human Rights Convention but alas this appeal later failed.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has rejected the combined appeals of Gerard O'Halloran and Idris Francis against the United Kingdom by a majority of 15 to 2.

This verdict enables the British Government to continue to force motorists to incriminate themselves using S172 of the Road Traffic Act, which is almost always the only evidence of the driver's identity in speed camera cases - a denial of the right to silence that applies if you are charged with almost any other criminal offence. In both of the cases appealed to the ECHR, as in hundreds of others every day in the UK, S172 was used or threatened in order to force a confession:

• Mr O'Halloran was compelled to name himself as the driver of a car at the time of an alleged offence under threat of criminal sanction under S172, and that was used to convict him of the criminal offence of speeding.

• Mr Francis refused to incriminate himself and sent a letter to the police to the effect that he was asserting his rights under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He was convicted of failing to provide the driver's details.

For further information call 01159100600