The defendant sought judicial review of the refusal by the magistrates to state a case. He was convicted for failing to identify the driver of a motor cycle of which he was a registered keeper which had been caught by a speed camera. Either of two riders might have been using it.
Held: Having failed to identify the driver he had to bring himself within section 172(4) to establish that he was unable to do so despite due diligence. The information provided was inaccurate and misleading: ‘it is clear that the claimant did not believe that he was the driver and knew that the only other possibility was Dr Sepp. It seems to me to be a clear inference that he believed that the driver was Dr Sepp and that his state of mind in relation to the identity of the driver was as close to knowledge as anybody who has not been present at the place of the offence can come. The fact that Dr Sepp did not believe that he (Dr Sepp) had been the driver was neither here nor there. ‘ The position was clear, and the request for a judicial review failed.
Richards LJ, David Clarke J
 EWHC 396 (Admin)
Road Traffic Act 1988 172(3) 172(4)
England and Wales
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Thornley Admn 3-Feb-2006
The prosecution appealed dismissal of an allegation of speeding. The defendant had argued that the prosecution had not served the required evidence. The prosecution sought to rely upon the evidence of the officer.
Held: The provisions of . .
Cited – Hawkes v Director of Public Prosecutions CACD 2-Nov-2005
The defendant appealed her convictions for assaulting a police officer and obstructing him in the course of his duty. She had acted in an abusive manner, but there had been no violence.
Held: Whilst she might have been arrested on the basis . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Glendinning Admn 13-Oct-2005
The defendant had been accused of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty by warning motorists of presence of a police speed trap. The prosecutor appealed from dismissal of the charge.
Held: ‘the hand signals given by the . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Mukandiwa QBD 21-Oct-2005
The defendant was asked to give a sample of blood. He declined, saying that the sight of blood drove him into a trance in which state he was liable to be violent. The Director appealed the finding that this was a proper excuse as a health concern. . .
Cited – Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 20-Oct-2000
Where magistrates considered an offence for which a driving ban was discretionary, they were entitled at that stage to take account of the driving record, even though they knew they would have to take that same record into account when considering a . .
Cited – Cox, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 25-Oct-2005
Cited – Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2004
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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2021; Ref: scu.239255