A Duty to Note the Details of Drivers under the Road Traffic Act 1988, s. 172?

Date01 April 2012
AuthorAlisdair A. Gillespie
DOI10.1350/1740-5580-76.2.110
Published date01 April 2012
Subject MatterDivisional Court
A Duty to Note the Details of Drivers under the Road
Traff‌ic Act 1988, s. 172?
Atkinson v DPP [2011] EWHC 3363 (Admin)
Keywords Speeding; Duty to disclose; Identity of driver; Defence; Rea-
sonable diligence
The appellant (A) owned a motor scooter. On 13 November 2010 it was
recorded doing 38 mph in a 30 mph zone. Cheshire Police sent a notice
to A, the registered keeper, asking who the driver was. A responded that
she did not know who the driver was. The scooter had been for sale and
she had let someone test drive it. She did not record his name and had
no idea who it was.
Cheshire Police responded that unless she told them the identity of
the data she would be reported for the offence under s. 172 of the Road
Traff‌ic Act 1988 of failing to provide the identity of the driver. She
replied that she did not know the name of the driver, and Cheshire
Police reported the matter for prosecution.
At trial A argued that she had a defence under s. 172(4) in that she did
not know the identity of the driver and could not with reasonable
diligence ascertain who the driver was. The prosecution argued that the
duty to identify the driver under s. 172(2) was a continuing duty and
existed from the moment the keeper let someone drive.
The magistrates acceded to this submission and A was convicted. A
appealed by case stated, the questions being stated:
Were we right to conclude that acting with reasonable diligence started at
the point the appellant allowed someone else to use her motor scooter and
not when she received the notice from Cheshire Police asking her to
identify the driver?
If the question is answered in the aff‌irmative, were we right to conclude
that the appellant had failed to act with reasonable diligence?
H
ELD
,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND QUASHING THE CONVICTION AND
REMITTING IT BACK TO THE MAGISTRATES
COURT
, reasonable diligence to
ascertain the identify of the driver fell to be assessed at the time the
request from the police was received by the appellant.
C
OMMENTARY
This case raised a simple and yet important point. Section 172(2) of the
RTA 1988 requires the registered keeper to disclose the identity of a
person driving his motor vehicle. This is subject to the statutory defence
under s. 172(4) that a person has a defence if he shows that he did not
know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the
driver of the vehicle was.
The appellant argued that the obligation to provide the details of the
driver arose when the keeper of a vehicle is required to do so by the
police. Before that time there is no duty on a person to know the identity
of the driver. When compelled to provide the details the defence under
The Journal of Criminal Law
110

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT