Louis Hardy Charlebois v Director of Public Prosecutions

The compulsory provision of driver-identification information under Road Traffic Act 1988, section 172, is a proportionate legislative response to road-safety concerns where the alleged offences are speeding or failing to stop at a red light. The fact that those offences are regulatory and may involve no criminal intent, injury, damage or negligence does not make the requirement incompatible with article 6. The same approach applies to requirements made under section 172(2)(a) and section 172(2)(b).

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against a decision of the Crown Court at Blackfriars. Automatic cameras had recorded three alleged offences involving a vehicle registered to the claimant: two speeding offences and one failure to stop at a red light. The claimant accepted that he was the vehicle’s keeper but refused, after receiving the relevant notices, to identify the driver as required by section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

He argued that the offence created by section 172(3), and the compulsory disclosure requirement, infringed article 6 of the Convention and were disproportionate for regulatory offences. The central issue was whether the Crown Court had erred in ruling that he had a case to answer.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Crown Court had not erred in law in ruling that the claimant had a case to answer.
2. The court was bound by Director of Public Prosecutions v Wilson [2002] RTR 37. That decision held that there was no relevant distinction between the driver-identification requirements in section 172(2)(a) and section 172(2)(b), and applied the reasoning in Brown v Stott [2001] 2 WLR 817.
3. In any event, the court would have reached the same conclusion independently. Requiring information under section 172(2)(a) or (b) for alleged speeding or red-light offences is a proportionate legislative response to the problem of maintaining road safety.
4. The claimant’s submission that Brown v Stott was confined to more serious offences was rejected. The relevant offences may lead to licence endorsement, penalty points and, in some circumstances, disqualification from driving. Their regulatory character therefore did not prevent the application of the proportionality reasoning.
5. Costs of £300 were awarded against the claimant. The judge had no power to grant leave to appeal; any application had to be made to the House of Lords.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal by way of case stated dismissed. The court upheld the Crown Court’s ruling that the claimant had a case to answer.
2. Crown Court at Blackfriars: The Crown Court rejected the claimant’s article 6 challenge to section 172 and ruled that he had a case to answer.