Director of Public Prosecutions v Hay

For offences of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence and driving without insurance, proof that the defendant drove on a road establishes the evidential foundation for the defendant to prove the relevant licence and insurance, because those matters are peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge. A request to produce documents, including form HO/RT/1, is not required. The duty to report an accident arises where the driver does not provide the information required by the Road Traffic Act 1988, even if the police witnessed the accident and made no request for details. No implied exception relieves the driver from the statutory reporting obligation.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated from the dismissal by Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court of charges alleging driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence, driving without insurance, and failing to report an accident. The respondent had been identified as the driver after a collision, but had not been asked to produce his driving documents and had not reported the accident after leaving hospital.

The magistrates treated the absence of a document request as fatal to the licence and insurance charges and considered that the presence of the police at the accident meant that separate reporting achieved nothing. The central questions were whether a document request was necessary and whether the accident-reporting duty applied on these facts.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The dismissals of the licence, insurance and Road Traffic Act 1988 section 170(3) charges were set aside. The licence and insurance charges were remitted to the justices for continued trial. The justices were directed to convict on the section 170(3) reporting offence.
2. For offences under sections 87(1) and 143(1)(a), once the prosecution proves that the defendant drove or used a motor vehicle on a road, the evidential foundation is established for the burden to lie on the defendant to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the required driving licence and third-party insurance were in force. Those matters are peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge. The prosecution need not prove a request for production of the documents, whether by form HO/RT/1 or otherwise. The magistrates therefore erred in dismissing the charges on a no-case submission.
3. The evidence that the respondent was the driver was unchallenged and sufficient to establish the foundation for the evidential burden. It was inappropriate to direct convictions on the licence and insurance charges because it remained unknown whether the respondent could prove the necessary licence and insurance.
4. Section 170 requires the driver to stop and, where required by a person with reasonable grounds, provide the specified information. If the information is not provided, subsection (3) requires the driver to report the accident in the prescribed manner and time. That reporting duty applies even where the police witnessed the accident but did not request information. The statutory language contains no express exception and no exception should be implied.
5. Lord Justice Rose agreed with Mr Justice Field’s judgment. The case was remitted to the justices with the stated directions.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On an appeal by way of case stated, set aside the magistrates’ dismissals, remitted the licence and insurance charges for continued trial, and directed conviction on the section 170(3) reporting offence.
• Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court: Dismissed the licence, insurance and reporting charges after accepting the respondent’s no-case submissions.