QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
|- and -|
|DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS||Respondent|
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
This transcript has been approved by the Judge
MR R HENDRON (instructed by D F Legal) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR J KING (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Crown Copyright ©
SIR ROSS CRANSTON:
"That on the evidence given by the defendant [ appellant] he had not discharged the burden placed upon him, given that he relied upon a third party to ensure that this personal post was posted in the appropriate manner."
"Was I correct on the accepted evidence in finding that the defendant had failed to show that he had discharged the responsibility placed upon him by section 172(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988?"
"172(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies —
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police or the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
(3) Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; and where it is so made —
(a) it shall have effect as a requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, and.
(b) the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it."
"7. Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post [...] then unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effective by properly addressing, pre paying and posting a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved there being effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
"22 [...] He submits, however, that it is ultimately a question of fact for the justices whether it was reasonably practicable for the defendant to have responded or not. The burden is on him to satisfy the court that it was not reasonably practicable and he failed to do that. It is not for this court on a case stated to question the justices' conclusions on that matter.
23 I think that analysis is right."
SIR ROSS CRANSTON: Is there anything else?
MR HENDRON: My Lord, no, there is no further application.
SIR ROSS CRANSTON: Thank you very much, to the two of you.