Lynes v Director of Public Prosecutions

A requirement under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 may be addressed jointly to more than one registered keeper where they share a registered address. The singular wording of section 172 includes the plural, and the statutory scheme permits joint keepers to be treated as jointly responsible for providing driver information. Service at the registered address is presumptively effective, subject to rebuttal. The requirement is satisfied if either joint keeper provides the requisite information. If neither responds, each may be convicted of failing to comply, subject to any statutory defence.

The appellants were joint registered keepers of a vehicle detected travelling at 81 mph. A section 172 requirement and notice of intended prosecution were sent jointly to them at their registered address, but neither provided information identifying the driver. They were convicted in their absence by the magistrates’ court. The Crown Court dismissed their appeals, holding that the joint requirement was valid.

The High Court considered, on a case stated, whether a single section 172 requirement could lawfully be addressed to more than one person, whether each person had a separate duty to provide the information, and whether the convictions were properly upheld.

1. Appeal dismissed. The three questions posed by the Crown Court were answered affirmatively, subject to the qualification concerning the precise formulation of the duty identified by McCombe J.
2. The proper approach to section 172 is purposive. Its purpose is to provide a practical, fair and enforceable means of obtaining information about vehicles and their drivers. A request must be reasonable and contain reasonably adequate details concerning the person required to respond, the information required, and the means of providing it.
3. There is a presumption that the registered keeper is the keeper for section 172(2)(a), and that the registered address is the keeper’s last known address for service. Those presumptions are rebuttable. A registered keeper who fails to provide the information within 28 days must establish a defence under section 172(4) or (7).
4. The singular expression “the person keeping the vehicle” includes the plural. A section 172 requirement may therefore be served jointly on persons registered as joint keepers at a common address. They are not served merely because of their relationship to one another, but because of their status as joint keepers or, alternatively, persons able to provide information under section 172(2)(b).
5. The notice was properly served and was reasonable. The requirement would have been adequately met if either appellant had responded. Neither did so, and neither established a statutory defence. The joint form did not cause unfairness or prejudice, and each appellant failed to comply with the requirement.
6. McCombe J agreed with the dismissal and with the affirmative answers to questions one and three. He considered it unnecessary to decide whether question two should be expressed as imposing a separate duty on each person or a separate duty to ensure that the information was provided.

The appellants were ordered to pay the Crown’s costs, assessed at £1,770.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal on a case stated was dismissed. The court answered the stated questions affirmatively.
• Salisbury Crown Court: The appellants’ appeals against conviction were dismissed on 8 February 2011.
• Salisbury Magistrates’ Court: The appellants were convicted in their absence on 21 September 2010 and fined £525 each, with costs, surcharge and six penalty points.