12 O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT to justify the use of answers compulsorily obtained. They rejected the Government’s arguments that there was any protection against use of the material in the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as sections 76 and 78 of that Act could not exclude testimony collected in accordance with a statutory provision. As the applicants had been subject to pending criminal proceedings and not a purely regulatory inquiry when subjected to direct compulsion, there had therefore been breaches of both Article 6 § 1 and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. 2. The Court’s assessment (a) Introduction 43. The Court first notes that the applicants were in different factual situations. Mr O’Halloran accepted that he had been the driver on the occasion in issue, and attempted, unsuccessfully, to have that evidence excluded from his trial. He was then convicted of speeding. Mr Francis refused to give the name of the driver at the time and date referred to in his Notice of Intended Prosecution, and was convicted for the refusal. The case of Mr O’Halloran appears at first sight to resemble that in Saunders (cited above), in which the applicant complained of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence which, he claimed, had been obtained in breach of Article 6. Mr Francis’s case, on the other hand, would seem to be more similar to the cases in Funke (cited above), J.B. v. Switzerland (no. 31827/96, ECHR 2001-III), Heaney and McGuinness (cited above), and Shannon v. the United Kingdom, (no. 6563/03, 4 October 2005), in each of which the applicant was fined for not providing information, and in each of which the Court considered the fine independently of the existence or outcome of underlying proceedings. 44. The central issue in each case, however, is whether the coercion of a person who is the subject of a charge of speeding under section 172 of the 1998 Act to make statements which incriminate him or might lead to his incrimination is compatible with Article 6 of the Convention. To the extent possible, the Court will therefore consider the two cases together. (b) The Court’s case-law 45. In Funke, the applicant was convicted for his failure to produce “papers and documents ... relating to operations of interest to [the customs] department” which they believed must exist (Article 65 of the Customs Code). The Court found that the attempt to compel the applicant himself to provide the evidence of the offences he had allegedly committed infringed his right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself (Funke, cited above, § 44). The Court elaborated no further on the nature of the right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating oneself.