Quantcast
Channel: Road Traffic Archives - swarb.co.uk
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 3900

Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Jan 2004

$
0
0

References: [2004] EWHC 236 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: May LJ, Nelson J
Ratio: The defendant was the registered keeper of a vehicle recorded as having exceeded the speed limit. He was required to identify the driver. He responded saying that it was one of six fleet vehicles and could not say who was driving it at the time. He appealed his conviction.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The letter accompanying and information cross referenced from the letter provided all the information requested. However the form required him to name the driver, and that he had not done. He could not however do so: ‘this conviction was, in large measure, based on an erroneous judgment as to the matter of the form and that, in those circumstances, it seems to me only right that this appeal should be allowed. The matter should be returned to the deputy district judge with a direction to acquit. ‘
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 172
This case cites:

  • Cited – Boss v Measures QBD ([1990] RTR 26)
    The defendant was prosecuted for having failed to provide information on a form when he had responded by telephone. . .
  • Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Broomfield QBD (166 Justice of the Peace 736, (2002) EWHC 1962 (Admin))
    If a notice is in reasonable form and requires the information to be given in a particular form then that form must be used. A purpose of seeking the information in section 172 of the 1988 Act was to enable proof of certain matters, including the . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23-Jun-17
Ref: 226859

The post Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Jan 2004 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 3900

Trending Articles