Magistrates to identify reasons for finding guilt
References: [2007] EWHC 634 (Admin), [2007] RTR 565
Links: Bailii
Coram: Smith LJ, Gross J
Ratio: The defendant appealed agains his conviction under section 172 of the 1988 Act. He had been abroad when his car attracted the speeding fine, but had been unable to identify which iof the several people who might have driven it, had done so.
Held: The decision of the magistrates left the defendant unable to identify the reasoning of the magistrates: ‘the oral judgment fails to explain in any satisfactory way why the statutory defence was rejected. That amounted to an error of law. That being so, and in the light of my earlier holding that the crown court’s decision appeared to be Wednesbury unreasonable in that there were no recorded facts on which the decision was based, I would hold that the appeal must be allowed.’
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 172(3)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Marshall v Crown Prosecution Service Admn (Bailii, [2015] EWHC 2333 (Admin), (2016) 180 JP 33)
A car was seen speeding. Husband and wife each said that they did not know who was driving it in response to notices requiring that information. Mrs M now appealed against her conviction under section 172. . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 09 July 2019
Ref: 251159
The post Weightman v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 6 Mar 2007 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.