Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| Date | 01 July 1965 |
| Published date | 01 July 1965 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836502900301 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal Law
VOL. XXIX. No. 3
JULy-SBPTEMBER,
1965
Courts
of
Summary Jurisdiction
NOTICE OF INTENDED PROSECUTION
WHEN a defendant appeared before Mr. A. H. Glenn
Craske at SouthWesternMagistrates' Courtrecently in re-
ply to a summons alleging that he had driven without due care
and attention, it was submittedas a preliminarypoint on his be-
half that the notice of intended prosecution had been served
out of time and in the wrong name.
In
evidence the defendant stated that he had not been
warned verbally that he might be prosecuted for the offence of
careless driving arising out of an incident which had occurred
on the 14th November 1964. He had not received a notice of
intended prosecution
but
his wife had taken one in on the 30th
November and given it to him.
The
defendant then produced
the notice which was dated the 23rd November 1964 and the
envelope it arrived in which was postmarked the 28th Novem-
ber 1964. Under cross-examination he admitted that when he
read it he had no doubt that it related to the accident in which
he had been involved.
It
was addressed, however, to his
three and a half year old son, who had been with him in the car
at the time of the accident and when he read it he had doubts
that it was intended to be served on him (defendant).
Counsel for the defendant pointed out that the words
inserted by the Fourth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1962,
after paragraph (c) of s.241 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960,
ran as
follows:-
"and
the notice shall be deemed for the purposes of
paragraph (c) of this subsection to have been served on
any person
if
it was sent by registered post or recorded
delivery service addressed to him at his last known
address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as
undelivered or was for any other reason not received by
him"
CL-l
••
IS3
To continue reading
Request your trial