R Monckton v Carlisle Crown Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Jay,Lord Justice Fulford |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 304 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/1140/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 27 January 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 304 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Fulford
and
Mr Justice Jay
CO/1140/2014
Michael Phillips (instructed by Andrew Storch Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The Defendant did not appear and were not represented
This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Carlisle Crown Court (the defendant) made on 22 November 2013 not to award Mrs Joanna Monckton (the claimant) costs out of Central Funds after her successful appeal against conviction. On that occasion the court seized of the appeal comprised Turner J sitting with two lay magistrates. The claimant also challenges Turner J's separate refusal, notified on 3 January 2014, to state a case for the opinion of the High Court.
Neither the Carlisle Crown Court nor the Crown Prosecution Service appears before us today. In relation to the Crown Court, its non-appearance is standard practice in cases of this nature. As for the CPS, it has recently been served with these proceedings pursuant to the order of Beatson LJ. It has taken the view that it has no proper interest in the costs issue.
The Essential Factual Background
The genesis of these proceedings was an offence of speeding committed at Warwick Bridge, which is on the A69 in Cumbria, at 15.18 hours on 1 October 2012. The car involved was a Volkswagon Golf (registration mark DS59 CXK), which was registered to the claimant. The speed limit on this section of the A69 is 30 miles per hour and it is alleged that the claimant's vehicle was travelling at 36 miles per hour.
On the day in question the claimant and her husband travelled from their home in Staffordshire to Northumberland. They drove on the M6, left the motorway at junction 42, joined the B6263 and eventually reached the B6318, known as the Hadrian's Wall road, on which they travelled in an easterly direction. The claimant's evidence was that she had a clear recollection that she was the driver of the vehicle along the M6, and that it was her husband who was driving at a much later stage on the Hadrian's Wall road. Where exactly the drivers changed places the claimant could not remember, but her recollection was that this was somewhere between junction 42 of the M6 and Greenhead. Warwick Bridge is between these two locations.
On 6 October 2012, the claimant received notification of the speeding offence in the form of a Notice of Intended Prosecution dated the previous date. Pursuant to this notification, the claimant was required under section 172(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to nominate who was driving the vehicle on 1 October 2012. The nomination had to be made within 28 days of the date of service. In the event that the registered keeper was unsure who was driving at the time of the alleged offences, the form reminded her that it was the legal responsibility of the keeper of the vehicle to nominate who was driving at the material time, but, as the form continued:
"… if you are having difficulty establishing who was driving you may contact the Central Ticket Office and they will check that the photographic evidence can be of assistance. Please note that the failure to identify the driver can lead to a separate prosecution for failing to supply driver details".
Upon receipt of this notification the claimant looked at a number of paper maps and on Google Earth in order to remind herself who was driving at the material time. She also sought to pool recollections with her husband. Neither could remember where the change over of drivers happened and so the claimant could not say who had been driving the motor vehicle at Warwick Bridge.
On 8 October 2012, the claimant telephoned and emailed the relevant police authority (the Cumbria Constabulary) seeking further information to try and identify the driver. On 16 October Cumbria Constabulary wrote to the claimant enclosing a coloured photograph of the vehicle at the time the offence was committed. In the event, the photograph failed to assist because it was taken from the rear. The letter also repeated the warning to the claimant that it was her obligation to nominate the driver of the vehicle, and the view was expressed that she should be able to do so without the photographic evidence. The letter concluded by explaining that the set of coordinates entered on the notice could be entered into the Streetmap website, and the exact location would then be shown on a map.
On 22 October 2012, the claimant wrote a letter to the police stating that she still did not know where the offence occurred because she was unable to get the location up on the screen, however she would accept responsibility for the incident and agreed to attend a National Speed Awareness Course. The claimant's letter was stamped as having been received by the Cumbria Constabulary on 23 October and it was also acknowledged.
On 1 November Cumbria Police wrote to the claimant assisting her by enclosing two images printed from Google Maps. Given that the original notice had given the incorrect postcode, it was reissued on 1 November and the claimant had 28 days to comply from that date. The images gave the claimant a very good idea as to where the offence was committed. Subsequently, but probably before 4 November, the claimant telephoned Cumbria Police seeking more specific information about the location of the camera. The computer record of the call reads as follows:
"… SHE AND HER HUSBAND WERE TRAVELLING FROM STAFFORD TO NORTHUMBERLAND AND SWAPPED DRIVERS FREQUENTLY. I ADVISED HER TO LOOK AT THE STREETMAP TO GET THE EXACT LOCATION. SHE WILL DO THIS."
On 4 November the claimant acknowledged receipt of the letter enclosing the Google Maps. She then said this:
"… There would appear to be a slight muddle as I have received a notice from HM Courts and Tribunals Service, when as I thought that I had filled in the form and sent you a copy of my driving licence, I was waiting for instructions telling me where to go for the Speed Awareness Course."
The claimant had not in fact completed the form. As already pointed out, on 22 October she had written to the police accepting responsibility and offering to undertake the Speed Awareness Course.
On 19 November Cumbria Police replied to the claimant's letter pointing out that the notice from HM Courts & Tribunals Service related to a separate matter. It was stated that the police had not received any request in relation to attending the Speed Awareness Course. This assertion was incorrect; it had. The letter continued:
"If you were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence and wish to request the Speed Awareness course you must complete page 4 of the Notice by ticking box 1, completing the boxes at the bottom of the page, sign and return with a copy of your driving licence to The Central Ticket Office."
Of course, applying to undertake the course was predicated on accepting responsibility for the offence at the time it was committed.
According to the witness statement of Jane Partridge there was a further communication from the claimant on 28 November, but a copy of that is not available. There is a letter from her dated 24 November in which she requested a copy of the form. At all events, it is clear from the foregoing chronology that the claimant did not nominate who was driving the vehicle. Furthermore, the claimant's position was not altogether clear. By agreeing to undertake the course and accepting responsibility, as she did on 22 October, the claimant was abandoning any point that she might have been taking about the identity of the driver, yet on another reading of the document she was contending that she could not be sure about this. On any view, the claimant did not complete the form, nor did she set out formally why she could not reasonably do so.
In due course the claimant was summonsed before the Carlisle Magistrates' Court for an offence, contrary to section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, of failing to furnish the required information pursuant to section 172(2)(a). It is a defence under section 172(4) if the registered keeper proves that she did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence...
To continue reading
Request your trial