References: (1932) 24 Cr App R 19
Ratio: The defendant complained that a jury had not been asked a question of fact, namely whether his name and address could not be discovered withut due diligence. The section had a proviso that failure to comply with the section was not a bar to conviction if the court was satisfied inter alia that the accused’s name and address could not be discovered with reasonable diligence.
Held: The appeal failed. The words in the proviso ‘the court is satisfied’ referred to the judge and not the jury.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1930 21
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Currie, Regina v CACD (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Crim 926)
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving. The failure of the police to serve him with a notice of intended prosecution invalidated the conviction. The police replied that there was no need for such a notice because there had been . . - Cited – Regina v Stacey CA ([1982] RTR 20)
The defendant had been arrested for driving whilst unfit through drink. He was warned three hours later that he might be prosecuted for reckless driving. In fact he was not charged with any offence relating to drink. When tried for reckless driving . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 23 February 2017
Ref: 251519
The post Rex v Bolkis: CCA 1932 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.
