have you received a section 172 notice?
There is a legal requirement to identify, for the police, the
name of the person driving the vehicle when it is alleged that a
road traffic offence has been committed. When they do this
the recipient has 28 days to respond.
The police only have to write to the vehicle’s registered keeper
within 14 days of the offence, warning of prosecution. If you
are the registered keeper then you must respond. If you were
the driver, but someone else owns the car, then it may take some
time before you get something through the post.
Also, you cannot hide behind the Human Rights Act. It is
entirely your choice not to incriminate yourself, but that will not
prevent the police from prosecuting you for failing to respond. So
far, the domestic courts have held that your right not to
incriminate yourself is outweighed by the rights of the wider
public to be protected from speeding motorists. Therefore, it is
currently not a defence to an offence of failing to name the
driver, to say that you had a right not to respond. This point has
now been taken to the European Court which has ruled that it is not
an infringement of a person's human rights.
That said, the police don’t always get it right and we have
secured acquittals where errors have occurred. It is important to
seek advice as soon as you receive a police request.
penalties
The penalty for failing to respond is a maximum fine of £1,000;
six penalty points or a driving disqualification.
naming the driver case studies
failing to identify the driver and speeding case
discontinued
Y contacted the Motoring Offences team at Blake Lapthorn after
receiving a summons alleging offences of speeding and failing to
name the driver of a motor vehicle when required. Y was
particularly concerned because the vehicle in question could have
been driven by any one of three people on the day in question. Y
had originally written to the Fixed Penalty Office requesting a
photograph but that proved inconclusive. Y maintained that she had
used reasonable diligence in trying to identify the driver of the
vehicle but had been unable to do so. Philip Somarakis advised her
about the strength of her case and arranged for the case to be
listed for a trial. After one telephone call and a letter from Tim
Williamson, also of the Motoring Offences team, the Crown
Prosecution Service discontinued the case because they accepted
there was not a reasonable prospect of a conviction at trial.
Y was extremely pleased and relieved to be told the news.
failing to provide details of a speeding driver in Dorset
M sought the advice of Philip Somarakis of the Motoring Offences
team with regard to a summons alleging failing to identify driver
details contrary to Section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The request related to an alleged speeding incident and the
proceedings were instituted by Dorset Police. M was advised to
tender a not guilty plea on the basis that she maintained that she
was not the keeper of the vehicle at the material time and the
Crown's case was based upon an allegation that M was the keeper
when the alleged speeding incident occurred. The matter came before
the Lyndhurst Magistrates Court for trial when M was represented by
Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences team. At the close of the
prosecution's case a submission of no case to answer was upheld by
the Lyndhurst Justices on the basis that they could not be
satisfied that M was indeed the keeper. An order for costs was made
in favour of M payable out of court central funds.
failing to provide details of a speeding driver in
Hampshire
Barry Culshaw was consulted by K with regard to an allegation
that he had failed to identify details of a speeding driver
contrary to Section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The
prosecution had been brought by Hampshire Constabulary and came
before a District Judge for trial at Southampton Magistrates Court
on 2 June 2009. Mr Culshaw statemented witnesses to support K's
contention that due to problems with the post he had not received
the request for driver details. The District Judge accepted the
evidence and dismissed the case finding K not guilty.
driver accused of not providing driver details in Oxford
Tim Williamson recently represented a motorist accused of not
providing driver details after an alleged speeding offence took
place near Oxford. The client maintained that he could not identify
who was driving because he was one of two people that used the car
and the photograph he requested was unclear and offered no
assistance. Both of the potential drivers drove the car on the road
in question several times each day. After representations to the
Crown Prosecution Service from Mr Williamson that the client used
'reasonable dilligence' to try and ascertain who was driving on the
day in question, the case was formally discontinued before getting
to trial.
failing to identify the driver and speeding case dismissed
Barry Culshaw of Blake Lapthorn's Motoring Offences team was
instructed by B who was facing proceedings before Swindon
Magistrates Court brought by Wiltshire Constabulary whereby B was
alleged to have been driving a motor vehicle whilst exceeding a 70
mph speed limit on the M4 in Wiltshire and in the alternative was
facing an allegation that he had failed to identify the driver of
the vehicle. B was advised to plead not guilty to both counts as Mr
Culshaw perceived that there was insufficient evidence to convict.
Following representations from Mr Culshaw to the Crown Prosecution
Service no evidence was offered by the Crown Prosecution Service on
the date fixed for trial and both counts were dismissed.
failing to identify the driver case discontinued
IC consulted Barry Culshaw of our Motoring Offences team based
at our Southampton office with regard to an allegation of failing
to identify the driver of a vehicle involved in an alleged speeding
incident near Bentley, Hampshire. Barry Culshaw, as an experienced
road traffic lawyer, made representations to the Crown Prosecution
Service that the client had done all in her power to identify the
driver within the appropriate time scale and had succeeded in
identifying the driver within an acceptable period of time. As a
result of the representations the Crown Prosecution Service decided
to discontinue the proceedings which had been pending for trial at
Aldershot Magistrates Court.
