Appeal dismissed; court upheld fine for speeding and refusal to identify driver due to lack of criminal threat.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against a traffic court verdict convicting the defendant of speeding and failing to identify the vehicle's driver. The defense argued that the refusal to name the driver was justified under the right to refuse answering questions that might expose a close relative to criminal liability. The court rejected this, ruling that the right to silence applies only to threats of criminal or fiscal liability, not mere traffic violations. Consequently, the conviction and fine were upheld, and the defendant was ordered to pay the appeal costs.