Advice on human rights and public lawLiberty and the Public Law Project have established a specialist telephone advice service for practitioners on human rights and public law.

In a regular series, Mona Arshi and Janet Arkinstall from Liberty, and John Halford from PLP, answer some frequently asked questions.Self incrimination and section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988We recently explained the fair trial implications of the removal of the right against self-incrimination in road traffic law [2000] Gazette, 16 November, 47.

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 imposes a duty on the keeper of a motor vehicle to identify the driver when a traffic offence is alleged to have occurred.Since then the Privy Council has delivered its decision in the drink driving case of Stott (Procurator Fiscal Dunfermline) v Brown (The Times, 6 December 2000).

It upheld the prosecution appeal and quashed the declaration made by the Scottish High Court of Justiciary that the prosecution had no power to lead and rely upon a section 172 admission.

In a unanimous judgment the Privy Council held that the right against self-incrimination is implied into article 6, and as it is an implied right it may be limited.

It held that the interests of the community in road safety means that it is permissible to override the privilege against self-incrimination in the limited circumstances allowed by section 172.

Secure accommodation orders In the same issue we considered arguments as to whether article 5 (the right to liberty) was breached by the imposition of secure accommodation orders under section 25 of the Children Act 1989.

The Court of Appeal considered an application for a declaration of incompatibility in relation to this provision in the case of In re K (The Times, 29 November 2000).

The application was refused.

The court accepted that the purpose of section 25 was to restrict the liberty of a child and that it therefore was a deprivation of liberty for the purpose of article 5.

However, it was held that the detention came within the educational supervision exception in article 5.1(d).

It was not necessary that section 25 should expressly refer to education, because the Education Act 1996 makes education compulsory for those under 16 and optional thereafter.

The Court of Appeal referred to the recent European Court of Human Rights decision in Koniarska v UK (12 October 2001) where a challenge to section 25 was held to be inadmissible.

Child support agency decisionsOf the large number of calls we have received from family practitioners during the last few months, many have been about the possibility of challenging decisions made by the Child Support Agency (CSA), using in particular article 8.

CSA decisions may have such an effect on the non-resident parents income that the parent may be unable to afford to exercise contact with his or her children, for example, if they are many miles away or if the parent might have a new family who is effected financially.So how is article 8 relevant? First, article 8 is a qualified right, which means that even if an interference under article 8 has been established, the state may try and argue the interference is justified and proportionate.

These arguments arose in the European Commission of Human Rights in the case of Logan v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR CD 48.The Commission held that the legislation in that case was not of such a nature or a degree as to disclose any lack of any respect for the applicant's rights.

There may be strong justification that the state can point to, to ensure that parents fulfil their financial responsibilities to their children.

However, there may be cases where the CSA fails to strike a fair balance between absent parents' responsibilities and a decision that provides fair and consistent results.

An example of this may be a non-resident parent on state benefits out of which deductions are made for child support.

If the non-resident parent has generous contact with his/her child - say four times a week - and is responsible for maintaining the child while the child is in his/her care, the deductions may in fact leave the parent with insufficient income to maintain a meaningful relationship with the child.The important point to note is that each case will turn on its own facts.

Logan does not rule out the possibility of a violation where it can be demonstrated that the consequence of a CSA decision leads to a substantial restriction of contact so as to amount to a lack of respect for family life.School uniforms Q My client's child has been excluded from a maintained school for breaching its 'dress code'.

I am advising on an appeal to the governors.

Is this a human rights issue? A First, it is important not to let any questions that might arise in relation to Human Rights Act 1998 overshadow other legal issues.

Most importantly, the Department of Education has issued detailed guidance on exclusion procedures and social inclusion (circulars 10/99 and 11/99, both of which are on the department's Web site http://www.dfee.gov.uk/circulars).

This should be taken into account by the school's head, the governing body which will deal with the appeal in the first instance, and any appeal committee established by the local education authority, to which a further appeal can be made if necessary.

It provides that exclusion should not normally be used as a sanction for breaches of school uniform policy.

Even though the actions of a state school will be covered by the Human Rights Act, the European Commission has previously held that enforcement of a uniform policy will not generally lead to a breach of the rights to respect for private and family life (article 8) or to freedom of expression (article 10) see BS v UK (application no.

11674/85, unreported).

Commission decisions, while not binding on the UK courts, must be taken into account.

This said, there are situations in which rigid enforcement of a dress code could well lead to a breach of the Act.

For instance, if the child is dressing a certain way for reasons linked to their religion or deeply held convictions, at a minimum the school will need to demonstrate how the code respects the right of the child's parents to ensure that education is provided in accordance with their religious or philosophical beliefs (also article 1 of protocol 1).l Such questions raise complex issues which cannot be fully considered here.

The human rights and public law line is free to practitioners with a general civil contract and open Monday and Wednesday 2pm to 5pm and Tuesday and Thursday 10am to 1pm, tel: 0808 808 4546.