Atkinson v Director of Public Prosecutions

Under section 172(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the keeper’s knowledge and reasonable diligence are assessed at the time of the police request for driver information. The provision does not impose a continuing obligation to identify and record every driver before any request is made. The keeper must show that the driver’s identity was unknown when the request was received and that reasonable efforts could not then ascertain it. The burden lies on the keeper. The interpretation must give coherent effect to the statutory scheme, including the additional requirements applicable to corporate keepers.

The appellant was the registered keeper of a motor scooter recorded exceeding the speed limit. A prospective buyer had test-ridden it, but she had not obtained his name or other identifying details. Following a notice under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, she stated that she could not identify the rider and was prosecuted for failing to provide the information.

The Warrington Magistrates’ Court concluded that reasonable diligence had to be assessed when she allowed the unknown person to ride the scooter. On appeal by case stated, the central question was whether the statutory defence was assessed from that earlier occasion or from receipt of the police request.

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates’ first question was answered in the negative. The second question did not arise, and the matter was not remitted.
2. Section 172 creates an offence for a vehicle keeper who fails to provide information required under subsection (2)(a), even if the keeper does not possess that information. The burden lies on the keeper to establish the defence in subsection (4). A person falling within subsection (2)(b) is treated differently because the prosecution must show that the information was within that person’s power to give.
3. The statutory offence is triggered by the police request. Section 172(4) uses the past tense in stating that the keeper must show that he or she did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, the driver’s identity. In context, both matters concern the time of the request. The statute contains no express general duty to know who was driving before that time.
4. “Reasonable diligence” concerns the task imposed by the request. It requires appropriate efforts to discover the driver’s identity despite not knowing it at the relevant time. It does not require a private keeper to create and retain a written record of every occasion on which another person uses the vehicle. That construction gives substantive effect to subsection (6), which requires a corporate defendant additionally to show that failure to keep records was reasonable.
5. Road-safety and enforcement policy, including the public interest discussed in Brown v Stott [2003] 1 AC 681, could not justify departing from the natural statutory language. The conviction therefore could not stand on the magistrates’ stated approach.

• Warrington Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant of failing to provide driver information and stated that reasonable diligence began when she allowed another person to ride the scooter.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by case stated, answered the first question in the negative, held that reasonable diligence was assessed when the police request was received, and made no order for remittal.