References: [2015] EWHC 2333 (Admin), (2016) 180 JP 33
Links: Bailii
Coram: Beatson LJ, Kenneth Parker J
Ratio: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.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 172(2)(b)
This case cites:
- Cited – Weightman -v- Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 634 (Admin), [2007] RTR 565?)
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. - Cited – Howarth -v- Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2818 (QB))
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to search him whilst travelling to a public protest in London. A previous demonstration involving this group had resulted in criminal damage, but neither the claimant nor his companions were found to . . - Cited – Tuthill -v- The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 3760 (Admin))
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that the evidence was obtained by means of an unlawful search by an officer. . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 15-Jun-16
Ref: 562467