Failure to provide information leading to the identification of a driver - Section 172 Road Traffic Act 88
Scottish case can provide persuasive authority over courts in England & Wales
M23LAW Solicitors defend clients throughout England & Wales on all motoring law allegations. One such allegation is failure by the registered keeper of a vehicle to provide information leading to the identity of a driver where a moving road traffic offence is said to have been committed.
The case of Procurator Fiscal Glasgow – v – Jackson [2010] concerned an offence of this kind and addressed the 6-month time limit for laying an information with the court which applies to ‘summary only’ matters. A brief chronology is provided at the end of this blog.
The prosecution argued that they should not be barred from bringing a prosecution against Mr Jackson. Having previously sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution and reminder to Mr Jackson, the police had visited Mr Jackson on the 30th April 2009 and service of the complaint had been effected on 23rd October 2009. As such, they were within the 6-month time limit for laying an information with the court.
The defence argued that the prosecution was time-barred as the information had not been laid with the court within the 6-month period. It was submitted that as a 28-day period was given by the police for the registered keeper to provide information as to the identification of the driver, the offence coincided with the expiration of that 28-day period. As such, the offence had been committed on the 13th February 2009 and the information should have been laid with the court within 6 months thereafter. The prosecution were time-barred by not laying the information with the court by 13th August 2009. In attending Mr Jackson’s home address, the police had sought to ‘artificially extend’ the period in which an information could be laid with the court.
The court found in favour of the defence. The offence under Section 172 RTA was not continuing, in that it ran 28 days from the last request made. The offence had been committed on the 13th February 2009 and by not laying an information with the court by the 13th August 2009, the prosecution were barred from bringing a prosecution against Mr Jackson.
Chronology:
16/12/08 - Speeding offence occurs. Driver not stopped at the scene.
17/12/08 - Notice of intended prosecution (NIP) and Section 172 notice sent to registered keeper; Audi finance.
12/01/09 - Response received to NIP, identifying Mr Jackson as being the hirer of the vehicle.
15/01/09 - NIP, with Section 172 notice sent to Mr Jackson.
13/02/09 - Reminder letter sent to Mr Jackson, with no response.
06/03/09 - Case passed to Strathclyde Police for inquiry.
30/04/09 - police attend Mr Jackson’s address and question him. The Section 172 notice was read to him. He replied in the terms ‘I don’t know who was driving the car on 16th December 2008… I have no recollection of the correspondence. I have no idea who was driving at the relevant time and date as my wife and I both drive the car.’ Police cautioned and charged Mr Jackson for contravention of Section 172 RTA.
12/05/09 - Case reported, for the issue of prosecution to be considered.
23/10/09 - Service of complaint effected.
29/10/09 - First court appearance.
No comments:
Post a Comment