Interesting s.172 High Court case
Discussion
Judgment given today at the High Court.
Atkinson v. DPP [2011] EWHC 3363
"The facts were that a Yiben Meiduo motor scooter was recorded doing 38 mph in a 30 mph area on Lovely Lane, Whitecross, Warrington, at 10.38 on 13 Nov 2010.
On 19 Nov 2010 a Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent to the Appellant, asking her who the driver was. She replied to say that she did not know. The scooter had been up for sale. A buyer had asked to test drive it before he considered buying it. She asked if he had a licence. He assured her he was legal to go on it, so she let him ride it. He returned, having done so, to say he would let her know if he wanted it. He never got back to her. She did not take his name.
The Appellant contended before the Magistrates that she had the defence provided for by s. 172(4) as she did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was. She contended that the defence of reasonable diligence had to be considered from the time the Appellant had received the notice from Cheshire Police asking her to identify the rider of the vehicle on 13th November 2010.
Magistrates' Court decision; "We were of the opinion that the appellant did not know and did not act with reasonable diligence in that she failed to obtain details identifying the person she allowed to ride her scooter on 13th November 2010 by not checking and not asking for documentation which would have enabled the appellant to reply to the notice of intended prosecution sent by Cheshire Police and provide the details of the rider of the scooter to them."
Question for the High Court, "Were we right to conclude that acting with reasonable diligence started at the point the appellant allowed someone else to use her motor scooter and not when she received the notice from Cheshire Police asking her to identify the driver?"
Judgment of the High Court, "The question posed by the Magistrates' Court in the case requires to be answered in the negative. Reasonable diligence to ascertain identity fell to be assessed at the time the request from the police was received by the Appellant."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/336...
Atkinson v. DPP [2011] EWHC 3363
"The facts were that a Yiben Meiduo motor scooter was recorded doing 38 mph in a 30 mph area on Lovely Lane, Whitecross, Warrington, at 10.38 on 13 Nov 2010.
On 19 Nov 2010 a Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent to the Appellant, asking her who the driver was. She replied to say that she did not know. The scooter had been up for sale. A buyer had asked to test drive it before he considered buying it. She asked if he had a licence. He assured her he was legal to go on it, so she let him ride it. He returned, having done so, to say he would let her know if he wanted it. He never got back to her. She did not take his name.
The Appellant contended before the Magistrates that she had the defence provided for by s. 172(4) as she did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was. She contended that the defence of reasonable diligence had to be considered from the time the Appellant had received the notice from Cheshire Police asking her to identify the rider of the vehicle on 13th November 2010.
Magistrates' Court decision; "We were of the opinion that the appellant did not know and did not act with reasonable diligence in that she failed to obtain details identifying the person she allowed to ride her scooter on 13th November 2010 by not checking and not asking for documentation which would have enabled the appellant to reply to the notice of intended prosecution sent by Cheshire Police and provide the details of the rider of the scooter to them."
Question for the High Court, "Were we right to conclude that acting with reasonable diligence started at the point the appellant allowed someone else to use her motor scooter and not when she received the notice from Cheshire Police asking her to identify the driver?"
Judgment of the High Court, "The question posed by the Magistrates' Court in the case requires to be answered in the negative. Reasonable diligence to ascertain identity fell to be assessed at the time the request from the police was received by the Appellant."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/336...
The right decision - we shouldn't punish people for being a little foolish (not when Cabinet Ministers get away with so much more on a near-weekly basis 
).
Practically speaking, it doesn't really help much - how frequently does the average person let someone unknown drive their car/ride their bike???
).Practically speaking, it doesn't really help much - how frequently does the average person let someone unknown drive their car/ride their bike???
So, is this saying that you only need to legally show diligence in understanding who is driving your vehicle once you get the notice from the police? Does this mean that I should post an advert on Pistonheads/autotrader classifieds, just in case I need a quick unknown driver alibi in a hurry?
tangerine_sedge said:
So, is this saying that you only need to legally show diligence in understanding who is driving your vehicle once you get the notice from the police? Does this mean that I should post an advert on Pistonheads/autotrader classifieds, just in case I need a quick unknown driver alibi in a hurry?
Post an advert if you know you're going to need it? Otherwise constant adverts might give the game away...U T said:
Wrong decision.
Anyone that allows their motor vehicle to be driven without assertaining the most basic infomation (name and address) is too stupid to own a motor vehicle.
I've sold a couple of cars privately, whereby the 'random' has turned up, shown me his license and I've let them drive whilst I've been the passenger. As soon as the sale went through/ended then I've pretty much instantly forgotten their name & address. 14 days later, I would be hard pressed to remember their name, and I guess so would most other sellers.Anyone that allows their motor vehicle to be driven without assertaining the most basic infomation (name and address) is too stupid to own a motor vehicle.
tangerine_sedge said:
I've sold a couple of cars privately, whereby the 'random' has turned up, shown me his license and I've let them drive whilst I've been the passenger. As soon as the sale went through/ended then I've pretty much instantly forgotten their name & address. 14 days later, I would be hard pressed to remember their name, and I guess so would most other sellers.
How did you know they had insurance cover? Just because they said so?Durzel said:
tangerine_sedge said:
I've sold a couple of cars privately, whereby the 'random' has turned up, shown me his license and I've let them drive whilst I've been the passenger. As soon as the sale went through/ended then I've pretty much instantly forgotten their name & address. 14 days later, I would be hard pressed to remember their name, and I guess so would most other sellers.
How did you know they had insurance cover? Just because they said so?I'd have asked for ID though, in this case in case he decided to ride off with it...
chriscpritchard said:
Even so, wouldn't change anything - you're not under any obligation to keep a record unless you're a company!
Companies are not 'obliged' to keep records (as such), but a defence of reasonable diligence would not be available to them unless they showed that it was reasonable not to keep such a record.Mojooo said:
Correct common sense decision if that is what happened and looks to be the correct interpretation of the law - but is somehing of a flaw in the law and will be open to abuse and no doubt tried.
I am surprised no one has tried to appeal in this way before...
I wouldn't be surprised if it got redrafted. I am surprised no one has tried to appeal in this way before...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff