Category: the law

There are currently various Speed Limits in Scotland. They range from 20mph “zones” (including much of Edinburgh) up to 70mph on most motorways and certain dual carriageways.

A bill seeking to make 20mph the new “default” speed limit has been rejected by Holyrood’s rural economy committee reports the BBC.

So what is the current “default” limit? Well the national speed limit is 60mph on single carriageway roads and 70mph on dual carriageways. The most common of Speed Limits in Scotland, however, is 30mph. This is the speed limit which applies to “restricted roads“. These are your typical roads found in built-up areas, including town centres and areas with substantial amounts of housing. It is likely that the closest main road to your house is a restricted road. These roads do not have speed limit signs. Instead the speed limit is designated by a system of street lighting. What is that? Its basically a set of lamposts with no more than 185 metres between each one.

It is primarily these roads which were targeted by Green MSP Mark Ruskell in his bill. He states that reducing the limit is :

“the simplest, quickest and cheapest way to save lives, make our streets safer, and encourage more people to walk and cycle more”

BBC NEws, 31 may 2019

With respect to Mr Ruskell, if he thinks reducing the speed limit by 10mph is likely to get more people walking or cycling then he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. I’m from Edinburgh and I don’t know a single person who has suddenly thought “hmmmm, 20mph? I know, I’ll walk those 5 miles to work instead. Chucking it down? No problem. Files to carry? It’ll build my muscles!”

As for increasing safety, given that we are repeatedly told how vulnerable cyclists are, I can’t comprehend how flooding the roads with more of them is going to “save lives”. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one, moreover, who has nearly been flattened by a cyclist pretending that red lights at pedestrian crossings don’t apply to them and their helmet-cams.

And, regretable though it is, the simple fact is that research from 2017 indicates most drivers simply ignore 20mph limits. Whether this is deliberate or not is questionable. Ask any driver how difficult it is to maintain a steady speed of under 20mph. It is harder than you may think.

Areas currently subject to 20mph limits are flooded with very “un-Green” road signs. If we are simply going to circumvent this environmental issue by making “restricted roads” subject to 20mph rather than 30mph then that is going to require a massive and expensive campaign to educate the public. Enforcement is another issue. The only practical solution to that is a massive, extensive and expensive system of average speed cameras and we all know how popular those are.

In rejecting MSP Ruskell’s bill, the committee stated:

“After considering the evidence presented, the majority view of the committee is that the default, ‘one-size-fits all’ approach proposed in the Bill is not appropriate, as it does not give local authorities the flexibility to devise 20mph limits that they consider appropriate for their areas.”

BBC news, 31 may 2019

In response Mr Ruskell states that the Committee “puts the motoring lobby ahead of child safety”. What an ignorant thing to say. Lets have 20mph zones outside every school in the country by all means. But even then there will be accidents. The only way to stop them is to ban cars altogether. Given the contempt with which he speaks of the (undefined) “motoring lobby”, perhaps that is what MSP Ruskell really wants.

I get a news feed sent to my phone every morning. It contains the legal issues of the day, everything from commercial and property stuff (too complicated), Brexit (too “oh god not again”) and updates on important cases (which saves me from having to read the actual case). I give it a perfunctory glance and then promptly forget about it. But not today. Because today’s feed contained this quite unbelievable story from The Times.

The article concerns something apparently mundane: an application to Dundee City Council for a taxi driver’s licence. Any individual seeking such a licence has to, quite properly, pass a “fit and proper person” test. Police Scotland are entitled to object to any application. They do so in the form of a letter to the Council setting out their grounds for opposition. This is usually on the basis of previous convictions and sometimes on the basis of fixed penalties for minor contraventions of road traffic legislation.

On this occasion there was reference to 3 minor convictions, all in excess of 7 years old. A bit harsh, maybe, but not improper. However the letter also made reference to an allegation of assault to serious injury and permanent disfigurement. Now this is a very serious charge but the applicant was acquitted of this charge by a jury of his peers. And as people in this country are innocent until proven guilty, this means the applicant is innocent in the eyes of the law. But not in the eyes of the moral guardians of Police Scotland. Here is what the letter said:

Police Service of Scotland is of the opinion the applicant is not a fit and proper person to be granted a taxi driver licence and objects to the granting of such a licence. It should be noted that the final charge [listed in the letter] of Assault to Severe Injury and Permanent Disfigurement has been disclosed on this occasion despite the applicant being found not proven for this.The reason for disclosure is that where not proven is the outcome in a case this shows the jury believed that the person in question is guilty of the offence, however there is an insufficiency of evidence to convict. It is the opinion of the Police Service of Scotland that this is pertinent to this application due to the serious nature of the offence and implication of guilty albeit without formal conviction.”

This is quite simply staggering. Lets leave aside the issue of how the police could possibly know the reasoning of the 15 ladies and gentlemen who acquitted the applicant. Lets leave aside how, short of illegally contacting members of the jury, they could possibly know they “believed him to be guilty”. What is most galling is that the police still refer to the “offence” supposedly committed. There was no offence. The accused was cleared by the jury.

A leading QC, Brian McConnachie, has accused the police of “ignorance and a quite staggering misunderstaning of the not proven verdict”. It is my opinion that Mr McConnachie may be giving Police Scotland too much credit. A more cynical view is that Police Scotland knows exactly what the Not Proven verdict means and simply sought to poison the minds of Dundee City Council against the applicant by providing deliberately erroneous information. History has proven that the police are not always above distorting the truth or planting evidence when they just know the accused is Guilty. Such deplorable conduct is mercifully rare and I do not suggest that the conduct here is comparable to that. But I cannot shake the suspicion that the motive is the same – the police just know the accused did it and are going to protect the public by ensuring he does not drive taxis.

Police Scotland claim that the letter was sent “in error”. If that is true, how did that “error” occur? We are not talking about a speliing error or a typo here. A alternative account could be that they have simply been caught out and are desperately backtracking.

Mr McConnachie wonders if this kind of thing is commonplace. I can only speak from my own experience. I recall representing one client accused of using his phone while driving and who had an ongoing application for renewal of his driving licence. He denied the offence. He was subsequently cleared of the offence when the case against him was deserted. In the interim, Police Scotland had opposed his application. The impression is that he was presumed Guilty by the police. The fact he was eventually cleared did not change the fact that the police had, in my opinion quite deliberately, poisoned the well. Cliches abound – “mud sticks”; “you can’t unring a bell”, “no smoke without fire”. I suspect that in this case – as in the current matter – police intentions may be good. They believe they need to protect the public. They need to ensure only fit and proper people drive our taxis and can’t details like “innocent until proven guilty” get in the way. But no matter how pure the motivation, did a wise man not once say the path to Hell is paved with good intentions?