Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Andrew J. Boyle
Is it true to say, with relation to the above act, it is the only law of the land where you are guilty until you prove your innocence?
Or is just more of a saying?
Regards,
Andrew J. Boyle
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin C
Registered keeper of a vehicle is considered guilty if it is photographed speeding, until proved otherwise, ie another person was driving. Fail to prove who was driving and you are still guilty. Just an example, there are probably others.
Martin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By LauraR
Section 40 of HASWA places the burden of proof on the accussed to prove that they have done so far as is reasonably practicable....
It is often referred to as the reverse burden of proof which is unique in H&S law as you are normally innocent until proven guilty and in this case you have to prove you are not guilty - i.e. have taken all reasonable steps.
Hope this makes sense. There have been previous threads on Section 40.
Regards,
Laura
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch
but implications of Section 40 have been weakened by judgment in HSE v Hatton Traffic Management Ltd.
Google for HTM and Judge Fox.
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ddraigice
HTM case has weakened "forseeability" argument not section 40 per se....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Andrew
The adage is not unique to just health and safety law but covers most 'regulatory' law.
The correct legal term is a 'strict liability,' where the prosecution does not have to prove the intent, but only that the accused by their act or omission breached the regulation.
Regards
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
Martin
Not strictly true regarding speeding, the registered keeper of the vehicle has a duty to identify the driver of a vehicle by making reasonable enquiries to ascertain who the actual driver is (Section 172 offence).
Failure to identify the driver (Section 172 offence)results in a penalty for that offence NOT for speeding.
If the registered keeper can show that, after making reasonable enquiries they cannot identify the driver, they cannot be prosecuted for speeding.
The most notable example of this was the Hamilton case where two people were in the car on a long journey and taking turns driving, the camera photo was not clear enough to identify the driver and it was claimed that they could not remember who the driver was on that stretch of road.
There are moves to make the penalty for a S172 offence £1000 pounds and 6 points on the licene of the registered keeper, but by no means is a driver 'guilty until proven innocent' despite what 'bluff and bluster' letters may suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch
As a result of HTM case, HSE solicitors are getting a letters asking for "further and detailed particulars" to enable the defence to have a clearer idea of what they are charged with.
i.e. the expectation is that HSE will indicate what they think was reasonably practicable.
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.