Duff v The Director of Public Prosecutions

A requirement under section 172(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 served on a driver is separate from a requirement under section 172(2)(a) served on the vehicle keeper. Information supplied in response to the keeper’s notice does not discharge the driver’s separate statutory obligation. Under section 172(7)(a), where notice is deemed served on a particular day, the 28-day period begins on that day. A summons is not fatally defective merely because its dates appear to omit a day, where it otherwise identifies the offence and no injustice is caused. The common-law approach to computation in Lester v Garland did not apply to the statutory wording.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against the dismissal by the Crown Court at Maidstone of his appeal from conviction at Dartford Magistrates’ Court. He had completed and returned a section 172(2)(a) form sent to his wife, identifying himself as the driver, but did not answer a separate section 172(2)(b) notice sent to him. He challenged both the sufficiency of the information supplied and the dates in the summons, which alleged the offence between 7 June and 6 July 2006.

The Divisional Court had to decide whether the first response discharged the claimant’s own statutory obligation and whether the dates disclosed an offence under section 172(3).

1. Appeal dismissed. Question 1 in the case stated was answered “yes” and question 2 “no”.
2. The notice sent to the claimant under section 172(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was plainly valid. The earlier notice had been served on his wife under section 172(2)(a). Her passing that form to him did not amount to service of the statutory requirement on him. His completion of that form therefore did not satisfy the separate requirement addressed to him.
3. The claimant had deliberately chosen not to answer the notice after taking legal advice. He was accordingly guilty of failing to comply with the requirement. The authorities concerning information supplied in response to an owner’s notice did not alter that conclusion.
4. Section 172(7)(a), read with rule 4.10(2) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, meant that the notice was deemed served on 9 June 2006 and that the 28-day period began on that date. It therefore ended on 6 July. The approach in Hare v Gocher confirmed that construction.
5. Even if the dates had been defective, the conviction could properly stand without amendment. Under section 123 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and the applicable authorities, the court could determine the case where the error caused no prejudice or injustice.

• High Court (Administrative Court): [2009] EWHC 675 (Admin) dismissed the appeal by way of case stated.
• Crown Court at Maidstone: dismissed the claimant’s appeal against conviction on 14 March 2008.
• Dartford Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant on 23 November 2007 of failing to provide information contrary to section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.