O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 5 sterling (GBP), ordered to pay GBP 150 costs and his licence was endorsed with six penalty points. 14. On 11 April 2001 the applicant asked the magistrates to state a case for the opinion of the High Court: “Whether in the circumstances of this case, the admission that the defendant was indeed the driver should have been excluded under sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 having regard to the Human Rights Act and the recent cases decided by the European Court as he had been obliged to incriminate himself?” 15. On 23 April 2001 the magistrates’ clerk informed the applicant that the magistrates refused to state a case as the issue had already been decided definitively by the Privy Council in Brown v. Stott (cited above) and by the High Court in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Wilson ([2001] EWHC Admin 198). 16. On 19 October 2001 the applicant’s application for judicial review of the magistrates’ decision was refused. B. Mr Francis (application no. 25624/02) 17. A car of which the applicant was the registered keeper was caught on speed camera on 12 June 2001 driving at 47 mph where the speed limit was 30 mph. 18. On 19 June 2001 the Surrey Police sent the applicant a Notice of Intended Prosecution in the following terms: “In accordance with section 1, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, I hereby give you notice that proceedings are being considered against the driver of Alvis motor vehicle registration mark EYX 622 ... This allegation is supported by means of photographic/recorded video evidence. You are recorded as the owner/keeper/driver or user for the above vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, and you are required to provide the full name and address of the driver at the time and location specified. Under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act you are required to provide the information specified within 28 days of receipt of this notice. Failure to supply this information may render you liable to prosecution. The penalty on conviction for failure to supply the information is similar to that for the offence itself, i.e. a fine and penalty points.” 19. On 17 July 2001 the applicant wrote to the Surrey Police invoking his right to remain silent and privilege against self-incrimination. 20. On 18 July 2001 the Surrey Police informed the applicant that the appeal in Brown v. Stott, cited above, held that section 172 did not infringe the said rights. 21. The applicant refused to supply the information. 22. On 28 August 2001 the applicant was summoned to the Magistrates’ Court for failing to comply with section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He obtained an adjournment.