Human Rights

[modeste]

Has anybody successfully appealed to ECHR on the grounds that a drink driving ban infringes their human rights (ie to work, etc.)?

[Ethel]

Driving is not a human right, it is granted to you by way of licence which can be revoked or suspended if you do not comply with the terms.

A person banned for the offence of drink driving chose to break the law, and the ECHR will not interfere in that decision.

The banned person can find alternative ways of getting to work, or can move home to be closer to work, or is free to find an alternative job.

[modeste]

I didn't ask for an opinion I asked for an answer!

[Ethel]

I have given you an answer.

You cannot appeal to the ECHR for an activity that needs to be licensed before you can legally engage in it.

[modeste]

My question was purely hypothetical: I didn't expect the ravings of barrack room lawyers who have never had a drink pass their lips.
We all know the results of drink driving along with careless/reckless driving and speeding.
All I asked was, has anybody been successful in an appeal?

[squarebear]

No-one will have been successful as it isn't something you can appeal against.

[modeste]

why not?

[squarebear]

As the others have said, driving isn't a human right.

[modeste]

I know a driving licence is a privilige that has to be qualified:

The right to earn a living is a right, as is the right to live.

Why can't the system be taken to book for denying the right to earn a living?
Before you start on about changing jobs, etc.

There are far worse crimes than drink driving' and more accidents are caused by speeding and careless driving!

[squarebear]

But you can earn a living without having to drive.

[modeste]

As I said it was a hypothetical question.

Please end now

[Ethel]

Who is the tee total barrack room lawyer?

Who has been raving?

No, nobody has been successful in the appeal because the appeal wouldn't be allowed as a driving licence is not a human right.

[modeste]

you must have woken up after your midday nap

[bednobs]

you have asked a reasonable question, and been given a reasonable and correct, comprehensive answer - more than some people get on here, yet you insist on insulting the people who have been most helpful and gone out of their way to answer you

I have no idea if the right to earn a living is part of the human rights act as you insist, but you can certainly earn a living without driving - for example people who have learning disabilities and could never learn to drive, might still be able to work

[squarebear]

Unfortunately, many people on here insult others if they do not get the answer they wrongly assume is correct.

[modeste]

yes or no would have done

[bednobs]

ecept the person who replied deided to be much nicer than that and give you the reasons the answer is no. How dare they? it's totally shocking!

[New Judge]

Perhaps we can stop bickering, children!

There are a number of reasons why such an appeal would fail (or, more probably, not be allowed to progress to the courts in the first place). A couple that immediately spring to mind:

Firstly the rights �to earn a living� or �to drive a motor vehicle� are not enshrined in the ECHR or the UK�s 1998 Human Rights Act. There are 18 �Articles� in the ECHR (upon which the UK�s Act is largely based). I cannot see how any of them � even using the widest of interpretations often favoured by Human Rights judges � can encompass either the right to earn a living, or to drive, or to a combination of both.

Secondly, the ECHR has, throughout its content, exceptions to the Rights provides by the various articles. In particular, many exceptions are provided to allow judicial punishments to be enforced. If such exceptions were not provided it would be impossible to impose a far greater restriction than a driving ban � that of imprisonment.

So whilst Article 5 says �Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.�

It also says �No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;

(it goes on to talk about further exceptions being provided for arrest and pre-trial detention).

So whilst it is often seen that the Human Rights Act is a panacea for criminals and wrong doers to avoid lawful punishment, it is not quite so simple as to quote ��Uman Rites� as soon as something occurs which one (not you, modeste as I know this is hypothetical) does not like.

Hopefully that answers the question without giving too much in the way of unwelcomed opinion!