police request for driver details
Vuyi Ndiweme instructed Blake Lapthorn early
in 2012 after he had received a Notice of Intended Prosecution
(NIP) from Somerset Constabulary. The NIP included further
documentation requiring him to identify the driver of a motor
vehicle that had been detected exceeding the speed limit. The
request was purportedly made pursuant to section 172 Road Traffic
Act 1988. There is a requirement that the request is made by
or on behalf of the chief constable / officer of police for the
county.
Upon reading the documentation sent to
Mr Ndiweme it was clear that although there was reference to the
requirement to provide driver details being made on behalf of the
Chief Constable, the request for driver details document did not
actually contain the name of the person making the requirement.
Mr Ndwieme argued that the evidence of his
confession (he nominated himself as being the driver after
receiving the documentation) was inadmissible because the request
for driver details was defective and could not be relied
upon. It was further contended that in the absence of the
name of the person, the prosecution would need to adduce additional
evidence to demonstrate that the person actually making the request
for driver details was properly authorised to do so by the Chief
Constable. Case law has established that the Crown must prove this
issue to the usual criminal standard – beyond a reasonable
doubt.
The case came before Taunton Magistrates Court
and upon hearing legal argument from the defence about the
defective request for driver details document, and after cross
examination of the member of staff from the central ticket office
about the chain of command that was in operation in Somerset, the
Magistrates decided that it could not be satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt that the witness was properly authorised to do so
and dismissed the case. The court ordered that Mr Ndwieme's
costs ought to be paid from central funds.
Tim
Williamson, the head of Blake Lapthorn's Motoring Offences team, who
advised Mr Ndwieme, commented: "This case shows that it is vital to
scrutinise all court papers carefully and seek specialist legal
advice before proceeding. It cannot be assumed that the
procedural requirements have been complied with per se. A
careful analysis of the papers will be required in every case.
"The Court did not make a finding that a
request for driver details set out in a document without a
name is defective as such. The witness from the ticket office
had only been in the post for two weeks at the time she sent the
NIP and didn't sufficiently understand how the team worked and how
authority was delegated. In another case, with a more
experienced witness and with perhaps a statement from the Chief
Constable about how power is delegated, then the CPS could well
have succeeded. Every request for driver details in Somerset
will most likely not include the name of the person and so there
could be many challenges in the Courts."
