To reveal to the ordinary UK motorist, clearly and concisely, how the government, police and judicial system deal with allegations of motoring offences in real life, and to provide the information motorists need to defend themselves.
PePiPoo grew out of an ordinary, everyday event - on a Sunday morning in April 2000 a car driver was stopped for speeding on a British motorway. It was the experience of that driver over the following nine months, as the judicial process ground along with little apparent regard for facts or rights, that built the conviction that motorists should know how the law actually works when it comes to speeding and other motoring-related allegations. In this site we aim to show you how the system works, and what you can do to defend yourself and obtain a just result.
PePiPoo do not condone breaking the law. We simply believe that motorists have the right to be treated fairly, in accordance with normal legal principles and with respect for their rights, and that allegations of motoring offences, such as speeding, should not be treated simply as an administrative issue leading efficiently and inevitably to a conviction.
ECHR "Right to Silence" Verdict
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's 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 the latest details of the case and up-to-the-minute analysis of the ECHR decision and its implications visit our forums.
Information presented within this website ("Information") is provided solely for information and education purposes. Such Information is provided 'as is' without warranty or term of any kind either expressed or implied including but not limited to any implied warranties or terms of merchantability fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement. All such implied terms and warranties are hereby excluded. By accessing this website you agree that PePiPoo the website webmaster and the providers of the Information will not be liable for any direct indirect or consequential loss arising from the use of the Information and material contained in the website including but not limited to lost finances punitive or consequential damages. Furthermore the webmaster shall not be held liable for the accuracy of the Information for delays or omissions therein or for its use or misuse.