Does leaving the scene of an accident breach your right to not self-incriminate under the ECHR?

[Buddfox]

I saw this question and court case posted to Facebook, and wondered if it had any merit. I've not investigated the case in question, and whether it had any unique circumstances that would not apply in general to the crime of leaving the scene of a traffic accident. Food for thought:

"A Swedish court has freed a driver for the crime of leaving the scene after being involved in a traffic accident with a cyclist.
The court has ruled that whilst "leaving the scene of a traffic accident" IS a crime under Swedish law there is a contradictory freedom covered by Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The Article forbids the State's power to force someone into self-incrimination.
ECHR reigns higher than Swedish Law in the Swedish Constitution.
The crime of the accident is another issue. Comparison is made to someone who stabs another person. The stabbing is a crime, but "leaving the scene of the stabbing" is not an actual crime.
I believe this may have severe implications for the victims of "hit and runs". It is likely to lead to more people leaving the scene because they face no further penalty for doing so resulting in "catch me if you can" mentality.
I am an Expat from London living in Sweden who happens to be the general auditor of the Swedish Cycling Federation. I will be raising this issue with the board as a matter of cycling safety in the country.
The verdict has been appealed to a higher court as a matter of law. I am in search of any similar cases in the UK where any driver has tried to claim the right to leave the scene under ECHR.
I have found reference to a driver who pleaded this defence in USA in 1971 claiming his right to the 5th. (The right to remain silent). He lost.
(CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. Jonathan Todd BYERS)
But I have not found anything from the UK.
Any help greatly appreciated."

 

[mjr]

Any details of the case or could it be a hoax?

It says it's been appealed anyway. I'd expect it'll be reversed as innocent people are required to remain and wouldn't have that defence because they've committed no offence to incriminate themselves of, so leaving the scene and asserting this protection as a defence against the "fleeing the scene" offence would also incriminate oneself!

 

[mjr]

Oh and before the usual suspects arrive: the UK signature of the ECHR predates our EU/EEC membership by many years. Brexit probably won't give you a right to hit and run either.

 

[Cubist]

If I didn't know otherwise, I'd say the most common mantra these days is " if I haven't been caught, I haven't done anything wrong"

 

[Buddfox]

Any details of the case or could it be a hoax?

It says it's been appealed anyway. I'd expect it'll be reversed as innocent people are required to remain and wouldn't have that defence because they've committed no offence to incriminate themselves of, so leaving the scene and asserting this protection as a defence against the "fleeing the scene" offence would also incriminate oneself!

I actually wondered if it could be a hoax, but I've not had time to research it. The logic feels tenuous, at best, to me

 

[PhilDawson8270]

The only thing I can find remotely similar on Google, is this thread.

If there's no case numbers, then I'd say it's a simple "Share this hoax story" scam that usually goes on to generate traffic for pages to be sold later

 

[Profpointy]

I'm guessing there's a couple of missing steps in the judgment. After all you could be freed on human rights grounds on an aspect of a murder charge (confession after torture say) but that would not mean murder was now ok "because of human rights"

 

[Pale Rider]

A read of article six is a good starting point.

It applies to what happens after charge, and in particular to the trial process.

Seems to me it's irrelevant - at the time they do it - to a person leaving the scene of an accident.

The case in the OP may be about something - possibly another article - but I can't see how it's got anything to do with article 6, which reads as follows:

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

 

[mr_cellophane]

Push for Swexit.

 

[steveindenmark]

There seems to be 2 issues both of which are covered by law already.

The first is leaving the scene of an accident. I think that is pretty much covered all over Europe and is accepted that it is an offence to leave the scene of an accident.

The second is not incriminating yourself. This is a bit more complicated. But my interpretation of that is that this means verbally and not by your actions. If that is the case, you are covered. At an RTA you need to provide your name, address and licence and insurance details. You can provide your licence and insurance details at a later date.

But you are under no obligation to talk about the accident , not even to the police. If you are arrested they even tell you in the caution that you do not have to say anything. It is probably put in there to stop you incriminating yourself until you have had the chance to get legal advice.

What you described above is just trying to avoid justice by running away.