Marshall v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 17 Jun 2015

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.

Beatson LJ, Kenneth Parker J
[2015] EWHC 2333 (Admin), (2016) 180 JP 33
Road Traffic Act 1988 172(2)(b)
England and Wales
CitedWeightman v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Mar-2007
Magistrates to identify reasons for finding guilt
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.
CitedHowarth v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 3-Nov-2011
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 . .
CitedTuthill v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Nov-2011
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that the evidence was obtained by means of an unlawful search by an officer. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Road Traffic

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562467