References: [1969] 3 All ER 1638
Coram: Parker LCJ, Ashworth and Cantley JJ
Ratio: 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 Road Traffic Act 1962 expressly provided that the notice would be deemed to have been served, even if in fact it was not, provided it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery addressed to the last known address. In view of that the court was satisfied that there had been proper service.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1962 Sch4
This case cites:
- Cited – Beer v Davies QBD ((1958) 2 All ER 255, [1958] 2 QB 187)
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. . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Nicholson v Tapp ([1972] 1 WLR 1044)
A traffic summons had to be served within 14 days and it was sent by registered post on the fourteenth day, so that in the normal course of post it would not have arrived until after the 14 days had elapsed. The prosecution sought to rely upon the . . - Cited – Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside Admn (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 2924 (Admin))
The driver appealed against his conviction for speeding, saying that he had not been given the requisite notice within the 14 days required: ‘The notice of intended prosecution had been sent to him by first class ordinary post in circumstances where . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 13 May 2017
Ref: 471008
The post Groome v Driscoll: QBD 1969 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.