Car-Keeper's Duty to Identify Driver
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300609 |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Car-keeper's
Dutyto
Identify
Driver
company had already repaid the difference between the original
and
the
reduced prices).
Car-keeper's Duty to Identify Driver
Kennel DC v Young
and
ors [1999]
RTR
235
A car was illegally parked in Devizes (Wiltshire), within
the
area of
the
local authority which eventually prosecuted for an offence
and
within
the petty sessional division of
the
court before
whom
the information
was
laid. The keeper of
the
vehicle lived outside the area (in Wrexham,
North Wales), which was
where
he received a request for information
identifying
the
driver at the time
the
car was parked;
but
he failed,
contrary to s 112(4)of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to provide
the required information. The local authority laid an information
against the keeper of the vehicle, before the magistrates' court in its local
area, alleging an offence contrary to s 112.
When
that information came
before the magistrates, they declined to
hear
it, on the ground that,
although it
had
been issued within their own local area of jurisdiction, it.
had been received by the defendant at a place outside their area, so
that
the alleged offence of failing to provide the required information con-
trary to s 112(4) had been committed, if at all, outside
the
area of
the
court's jurisdiction. The local authority appealed by way of case stated.
that
ajustice
of
the
peace of an area to which the section applies
may
issue a sum-
mons or warrant if the offence was committed or is suspected to have
been committed within the area. Subsection (2) states
that
the
areas are
commission areas. Section 112 of the Road TrafficRegulation Act 1984
provides that
where
the driver of a vehicle is guilty of a relevant offence,
the person keeping the vehicle
must
give such information as to the
driver of the vehicle as he is required to give. In the case of a parking
offence that information may be required by the local authority. It is, by
virtue of subsection (4), an offence to fail to give information which is
known
or could be, with reasonable diligence, ascertained.
The issue was
whether
the alleged offence had
been
committed
within the area of jurisdiction of
the
court. The offence alleged a failure,
that
is, an omission. Where does a failure or omission take place? The
common sense answer seems to be, Wherever you
happen
to be
when
you should have performed an act, which you did
not
perform. If you
receive a letter in your
home
requiring information (it being assumed
that you will send the information in the same way as
the
request for it
was sent),
then
the act which you should perform is
that
of sending a
letter from your home. If
the
act takes place there, its converse (the
failure or omission) must also take place there. Assuming that to be
the common sense answer,
the
issue in this case was
whether
common
sense was to prevail (with highly inconvenient results) or
whether
some
other, more convenient answer could be found. The issue was between
two possibilities-that the failure occurred at
the
place of receipt of the
525
To continue reading
Request your trial