A bus driver was allegedly involved in an act of careless driving and was sent notice of an intention to prosecute by registered post ten days after the accident. In fact he was on holiday and the letter was returned without ever being delivered.
Held: This did not constitute appropriate service within 14 days within the meaning of the relevant legislation, then section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1930. The mere sending of a letter did not constitute service and section 26 of the Interpretation Act did not help because the presumption of service in the ordinary course of post had again been rebutted on the facts.
References: (1958) 2 All ER 255, [1958] 2 QB 187
Judges: Goddard CJ and Hilbery and Donovan JJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Groome v Driscoll QBD ([1969] 3 All ER 1638)
The defendant, prosecuted for a minor driving offence of driving without due care and attention, did not receive the information of intended prosecution within 14 days as the statute required. He appeal by case stated.
Held: Schedule 4 to the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 28 August 2020; Ref: scu.471007 br>
The post Beer v Davies: QBD 1958 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.