John Mann International Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate

Failure to comply with a notice requiring production of tachograph records is a do notice offence. The offence is complete when the period specified for compliance expires and is not continuing. An operator nevertheless remains under a continuing statutory obligation to retain the records and may be required to produce them by further notices. Subject to the protection against repeated prosecution after conviction, failure to comply with a later notice concerning the same records may constitute a further offence. Informations must be laid within six months of the relevant failure.

John Mann International Limited, an international road haulier, appealed by way of case stated against convictions by justices for 44 offences under section 99 of the Transport Act 1968. The offences concerned failures to produce tachograph records following three notices served by the Vehicle Inspectorate. The justices held that the offences were not continuing offences but that the third notice could found the prosecutions. The central issues were whether the offences were complete on expiry of the first notice and whether failure to comply with the later notice could constitute further offences within the six-month limitation period.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The convictions were upheld, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, summarily assessed at £4,818.50.
2. Failure to comply with a notice under section 99(1) of the Transport Act 1968 requiring production of tachograph records is an offence under section 99(4). Applying the analysis in Hodgetts v Chiltern District Council [1983] 2 AC 120, it is a non-compliance offence arising from a do notice. It is complete once the period for compliance specified in the notice expires. It does not continue thereafter.
3. The conclusion that the first offence was complete on expiry of the first notice did not prevent later notices from having legal effect. The operator remained obliged to retain the tachograph records for one year under Article 14(2) of Regulation (EEC) 3821/85 and could be required to produce them at any point by a further notice under section 99(1).
4. Each notice had to be complied with. Failure to produce the specified records in response to the third notice could therefore amount to offences under section 99(4), even though the records had also been sought by earlier notices. The court recognised that a further prosecution following a conviction for an earlier failure concerning the same records could not succeed, but no such earlier prosecution had occurred here.
5. The informations were laid within six months of the expiry of the third notice. The justices were accordingly entitled to convict on the basis of failure to comply with that notice.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On an appeal by way of case stated, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions imposed by the justices.
• Sleaford Justices: On 18 June 2003, convicted the appellant of 44 offences under section 99(4) of the Transport Act 1968, imposing fines and costs.