Magistrates' Court Cases
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837203600301 |
| Published date | 01 July 1972 |
| Date | 01 July 1972 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal Law
Vol.
XXXVI
NO.3
July
jSeptember
1972
Magistrates' Courts Cases
INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE
OF
IDENTITY
THE defendant in a recent case at Wells Street Magistrates'
Court was charged
that
"being the keeper of a motor vehicle
registration
mark
ABC 1000, the driver of which was alleged to be
guilty of an offence to which this Section applies at
Talbot
Sq.,
W.2. on the 23
June
1971
you did fail to give such information as
to the identity
of
the driver as you were requested to give by (the
Westminister City Council)" contrary to s.85(2)(a) of the
Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1967.
The
prosecutor adduced in evidence
just
two statements,
both under the CriminalJustice Act 1967
S.9.
The
first, by a clerk
in the employment of Westminster City Council, stated
that
the
maker
had
sent by recorded delivery to the defendant an enquiry
form which "gave details of an alleged traffic offence . . . con-
cerning motor vehicle registration number ABC 1000
at
Talbot
Sq., W.2. on the 23
June
1971
and
requested
that
(the defendant)
should complete
and
return it to the Westminster City Council".
The
second statement was by an officer in the Authority in
charge
of
the records for the defendant's
car
and
stated
that
on
the 23
June
1971 the defendant was the registered owner of the
vehicle ABC 1000.
On
this evidence alone the prosecution case rested. Upholding
a submission of no case to answer, by the defendant's Counsel,
the Stipendiary Magistrate held
that
the prosecution
had
failed to
adduce
any
evidence
that
the vehicle in question was involved at
the time
and
place of the alleged offence (the reference in
the
first statement being no more
than
hearsay evidence) and,
following Nealv.
Fior
[1968] 3 A.E.R. 865, a case on the identically
worded s.232
of
the
Road
Traffic Act 1960, such evidence was
essential to
the
prosecution case. Accordingly, the summons was
dismissed.
The
prosecutor was acting in person
but
declined the
K137
To continue reading
Request your trial