Failure to Provide Driver Information (Section 172)

Introduction

It is a Criminal Offence not to provide information pursuant to a request under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988. This charge normally arises when an individual fails to respond to information about a driver who has triggered a speed camera or was involved in another Road Traffic Offence.

The purpose of the Section 172 offence is to ensure that those who are caught speeding respond to the notice, hence why it is punishable with 6 points rather than the usual 3 for a speeding offence.

The offence and the relevant defences are relatively poorly understood, with a lack of consistency across Magistrates Courts. It is therefore important to secure legal representation at an early stage, especially with the strict time limits that apply.

How are these offences prosecuted?

Section 172 applies to requests to provide information following a speeding offence has been committed. Subsection 2 provides for the requirement to provide information in two separate situations:
 

The person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police or the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force, and

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.

The power to request this information is delegated to numerous departments across the UK. In order to prove their case, the Prosecution simply need to show that the request for information was sent by recorded first class post. there is an assumption that it has been received that has to be disproved. This request will be recorded on the Police Computer system and there is a standard set of evidence that will be served against any Defendant.

Where it can be shown that the request was not sent in line with normal post, there is no offence committed and it is not necessary to rely upon a defence (Krishevsky v. DPP 178 J.P. 369, DC). This means it can be very difficult to defend against the charge.

There is an obligation to respond to the request for information within the time and manner specified within the notice (DPP v Broomfield [2002] EWHC 1962). For example, the request is for a response in writing, if there were to be a phone call in response rather than in writing then an offence is still committed.

The information to be provided is that which the Defendant can reasonably be expected to provide. These cases are either prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service or by the Police Service themselves. If prosecuted by the Police Service there are often disclosure failings which can result in the Prosecution being stayed by the Court or abandoned by the Prosecution.

Defences

There are two defences that an individual can rely upon in respect of the commission of an alleged offence:

1. It was not reasonably practicable for the Defendant to know about the existence of the request;
2. The Defendant did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence find out, who the driver was.

A Defendant must not necessarily make themselves available at the address the vehicle is registered to, although not doing so makes it more difficult to demonstrate the defence is made out (R. (Purnell) v. Snaresbrook Crown Court [2011] R.T.R. 35, DC).

It will be for the Defendant to show that it was not reasonably practicable for them to have become aware of the notice (Whiteside v. DPP 176 J.P. 103, DC). The test of reasonable practicability is a matter for the Magistrates to determine. This defence is predominantly used where there are pre-existing issues with the postal service at the address to which the request for information has allegedly been sent.

Under section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, service is effected by properly addressing, preparing and post a letter containing a document and is assumed to have taken place unless the contrary is proved. Part 4.1 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, 2015 provides that the document is deemed to be served within two working days of being posted. 

The second defence, is simply for the Magistrates to determine whether or not reasonable diligence was used and whether or not the Defendant knew who the driver was. This is determined on a fact by fact basis and one which should be discussed.

In respect of the offence, the sentence imposed is a maximum financial penalty of £1,000 in addition to 6 penalty points, there may also be cost consequences. It is possible for a director to be prosecuted as well as a Company if they can be shown to be culpable. The director may then receive a total of 6 penalty points in addition to a financial penalty to a maximum of £1,000.

Contact Rhys now if you have received one of these notices or are being prosecuted for failure to respond. Under the Single Justice Procedure Notice provisions (SJPN) strict time limits apply for responding to these notices.