O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 9 3. All who own or drive motor cars know that by doing so they subject themselves to a regulatory regime. This regime is imposed not because owning or driving cars is a privilege or indulgence granted by the State but because the possession and use of cars (like, for example, shotguns ...) are recognised to have the potential to cause grave injury. It is true that section 172(2)(b) permits a question to be asked of ‘any other person’ who, if not the owner or driver, might not be said to have impliedly accepted the regulatory regime, but someone who was not the owner or driver would not incriminate himself whatever answer he gave. If, viewing this situation in the round, one asks whether section 172 represents a disproportionate legislative response to the problem of maintaining road safety, whether the balance between the interests of the community at large and the interests of the individual is struck in a manner unduly prejudicial to the individual, whether (in short) the leading of this evidence would infringe a basic human right of the respondent, I would feel bound to give negative answers. If the present argument is a good one it has been available to British citizens since 1966, but no one in this country has to my knowledge, criticised the legislation as unfair at any time up to now.” The decision was adopted by the English High Court in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Wilson, cited above. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 2 OF THE CONVENTION 32. The applicants complained that they had been subject to compulsion to give incriminating evidence in violation of the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination. Article 6 of the Convention provides, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ... 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” A. Applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 33. The applicants submitted that the criminal limb of Article 6 § 1 was applicable in their case because each of them had received a Notice of Intended Prosecution, and each of them was fined, Mr O’Halloran for driving in excess of the speed limit, and Mr Francis for refusing to give the name of the driver on the occasion in issue. 34. The Government did not suggest that Article 6 § 1 was not applicable to the cases.