The plaintiff was charged with an attempting to commit an offence of taking and driving away a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. The Justices fined him andpound;10 and ordered that the particulars of the conviction should be endorsed on his licence.
Held: There was no jurisdiction to endorse for an offence of attempt and that the endorsement should be removed. The Justices had said that endorsement of a licence was not a punishment. Ashworth J did not agree: ‘The Justices said that nowadays an endorsement is not a penalty. For my part I am inclined to think counsel for the appellant is right, that whatever may have been the position before the recent legislation, the presence of an endorsement on a licence now is something that any motor driver would seek to avoid, and as it comes as the result of an offence by him, it is in my judgment truly described as part of the penalty. In my judgment, therefore, the justices were wrong in ordering that this appellant’s licence should be endorsed, and I would allow this appeal, and order the endorsement to be removed.’
Judges:
Ashworth J
Citations:
[1968] 2 All ER 333
Cited by:
Cited – Power v Provincial Insurance CA 18-Feb-1997
The insured had failed to disclose an earlier drink driving conviction on applying for insurance over five years later. The insurers refused cover on an accident. The plaintiff said that the conviction was spent under the 1974 Act. The endorsement . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.376001