The defendant was sent a notice of intended prosecution for an alleged offence of driving a vehicle with a trailer in the outside lane of a motorway. The notice was accompanied by a form on which the defendant could provide information as to the identity of the driver at the relevant time, information which he was obliged to provide under section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The defendant, who had become the registered keeper of the vehicle after the date of the alleged offence, stated on the response form that he was not the driver at the time of the alleged offence and provided the date on which he had become the registered keeper, but did not provide any details of the previous keeper as required by the forms, and he failed to respond to subsequent requests to identify the driver. The defendant was charged with the road traffic offence and with an offence of failing to give information relating to the identification of the driver of a vehicle when required, contrary to section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. In dismissing both charges the magistrates’ court found, inter alia, that while the defendant had not complied with the statutory requirement to identify the driver of the vehicle, he had shown that despite due diligence he could not have ascertained the identity of the driver and could therefore rely on the defence under section 172(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The prosecutor appealed by way of case stated against the defendant’s acquittal on the second charge, contending that, as at the date of the alleged road traffic offence, the defendant had not been the registered or actual keeper of the vehicle and was therefore not “the person keeping the vehicle” for the purpose of section 172(2)(a), and the defendant’s obligation had instead been to provide the name of the previous keeper pursuant to section 172(2)(b), to which the defence under section 172(4) had no application.
On the prosecutor’s appeal by way of case stated—
Held, appeal allowed. On a proper interpretation, “the person keeping the vehicle” under section 172(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 referred to the actual keeper who had day-to-day care and control over the vehicle at the date of the offence, rather than the registered keeper. It followed that the defendant’s obligation to provide information arose not under section 172(2)(a) but instead under section 172(2)(b), which required the defendant to give any information which it was in his power to give and might lead to the identification of the alleged offending driver. The defendant therefore could not rely on the defence under section 172(4) that he had no knowledge of or could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the identity of the driver of the vehicle, as the defence applied only to cases falling within section 172(2)(a). Given that it was apparent on the response form sent by the police that the obligation on the defendant was to reply correctly and to identify the previous keeper, regardless of whether the police had other routes of investigation, the defendant, in failing to provide the name of the previous keeper which was within his knowledge, was clearly guilty of the offence under section 172(3) of the 1988 Act. Accordingly, the acquittal would be set aside and the case remitted with a direction that the magistrates find the defendant guilty of the second charge (paras 59–63, 66–70).
Paul Jarvis KC (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Appeals and Review Unit ) for the prosecutor.
The defendant in person.