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 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. ‘


May LJ, Nelson J


[2004] EWHC 236 (Admin)




Road Traffic Act 1988 172


England and Wales


CitedBoss v Measures QBD 1990
The defendant was prosecuted for having failed to provide information on a form when he had responded by telephone. . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Broomfield QBD 2002
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedFlegg v Justices of the Peace for the New Forest Local Justice Area Sitting at Lyndhurst Admn 21-Feb-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226859