Application of the Defence of "Reasonably Practicable": Whiteside -v- Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] EWHC (Admin) 3471
|
|
Location: Case Types Criminal LawCriminal Appeals |
  |
| Posted by: Law Brief Publishing |
23/02/2012 11:26 PM |
The Appellant accepted that a notice served pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1988, s.172 was served at the registered address within the relevant period of time, but the Appellant regularly worked outside the jurisdiction and in his absence his post was dealt with by his wife, staff and/or private secretary. The Court accepted that the Appellant did not personally receive the relevant notice, nor was he informed of it and was therefore personally unaware of the requirement to provide the information sought. At trial, the Appellant submitted that he had a defence pursuant to s.172(7)(b), namely that it had not been reasonably practicable for him to have provided the information required by the notice.
The Justices convicted the Appellant of the offence of failing to respond to a notification requiring driver details on the basis that, although it was accepted he was personally unaware of the notice, it was not a defence within the ambit of s.172(7)(b).
The Appellant appealed, unsuccessfully, against that conviction by way of case stated.
Elias LJ rejected the appeal on the basis that it was plain from the Statutory provisions that service may be effected by post whether the notice was in fact received by the Defendant or not - it would frustrate the whole purpose of service by post were it otherwise. A Defendant may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption that the notice was delivered in the ordinary course of the post, but here the Appellant had none; indeed, it was accepted by the Appellant that the post may well have been delivered to the home address. Accordingly, there was effective service which obliged the Appellant to give the relevant information pursuant to s.172(2)(a). The Justices properly considered whether the Appellant had satisfied them that it was not reasonably practicable to response to the notice on the ground that he was never aware of it and they concluded that he had discharged that burden, however, they held that it was reasonably practicable for him to have become aware of it and that was a conclusion open to them o n the evidence. |
| Court: High Court (Queen's Bench Division) (England and Wales) |
| Click on this link to access the full judgment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|