References: [2003] EWHC 1586 (Admin), Times 11-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii
Coram: Owen J
Ratio: The two appellant drivers had been sent forms requiring them to identify the drivers of vehicles identified by speed cameras. They had replied providing the requested information, but the forms were unsigned. They resisted use of the forms as evidence against them.
Held: The forms could not be used as evidence against the defendants on the charges of speeding. A form otherwise complete but unsigned did not satisfy the requirements of the section.
Statutes: Motorways Traffic (Speed Limit) Regulations 1974 (1974 No 502) 3, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 17(4), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 12(1)(b) Sch 2
This case cites:
- Cited – Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown PC (Times 06-Dec-00, PC, [2001] 2 WLR 817, [2003] 1 AC 681, [2001] 2 All ER 97, [2000] UKPC D3, Bailii, 2000 GWD 40-151, 11 BHRC 179, 2001 SLT 59, 2001 SC (PC) 43, (2001) 3 LGLR 24, [2001] RTR 121, [2001] UKHRR 333, [2001] HRLR 9, 2001 SCCR 62)
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Hayes v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn ([2004] EWHC 277 (Admin))
Absence of caution from form requesting information form driver. . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 16 November 2018
Ref: 185640
The post Mawdesley and Yorke v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary and Another: Admn 31 Jul 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.