Nembhard v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 21 Jan 2009

The defendant appealed against his conviction for failing to produce his driving documents, saying that the local police had stopped some 55 times in the previous 12 months, and that the request was improper and an abuse.
Held: ‘An officer can only require a driver to produce his licence if the requirement is for the purpose specified in section 164(1), namely ‘so as to enable the constable to ascertain the name and address of the holder of the licence, the date of issue, and the authority by which it was issued’. Accordingly, if the officer requires production not in order to ascertain those matters, for example because he is already aware of them, but in order to discomfort, inconvenience and harass the driver, the requirement is not lawful and the driver commits no offence by failing to comply with it.’ However, there was insufficient evidence to supporty the suggestion that the officer did not have a proper purpose in this case.
The court noted that it was difficult to understand how a police force could justify stopping a particular person once a week for a year when no other charhges had resulted.


[2009] EWHC 194 (Admin)




Road Traffic Act 1988


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAbdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Feb-2011
The defendants appealed against convictions for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He had attended a . .
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 24-Nov-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s refusal to discontinue the prosecution of the claimant. The judge had suggested that the defendant could submit to a restraining order without a finding of guilt. The CPS had concluded that no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.311788