Phiri v Director of Public Prosecutions

A person served with a requirement under Road Traffic Act 1988, section 172, bears a personal responsibility to provide the police with information identifying the driver. That responsibility is not discharged merely by placing a completed response in an employer’s internal postal system and relying on another person to post it. The statutory defence requires the person to show that the information was given as soon as reasonably practicable or that it was not reasonably practicable to give it. On a case stated, the appellate court must determine whether the correct legal analysis was applied to the facts found, but the conviction may stand where the lower court’s analysis and application of the law are sound.

The appellant was convicted by Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court of failing to provide driver-identification information under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He accepted that he was the vehicle’s registered keeper and had completed a response nominating another driver. He left the response in a postal tray at his workplace, relying on the university’s post-room staff to send it. The Deputy District Judge found that he had not discharged his personal responsibility and convicted him.

The appeal by way of case stated concerned whether, on the accepted evidence, the appellant had shown that he had discharged the responsibility imposed by section 172(2)(b).

1. The appeal was dismissed. The question posed by the Deputy District Judge was answered in the affirmative.
2. Section 172 imposes a personal burden on the recipient of the notice to provide the police with information identifying the driver. The recipient must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the statutory obligation has been discharged.
3. The appellant had placed performance of that personal responsibility in the hands of third parties. Leaving the completed response in a workplace postal tray, with an expectation that employees would post it, was not equivalent to posting it himself or entrusting it to a private postal service providing a comparable service.
4. The lower court had applied the correct legal analysis to the facts it accepted. The conviction was upheld because the appellant had not given the required information to the police, not merely because the appellate court was unable to question the lower court’s factual conclusion under the approach discussed in Whiteside v The Director of Public Prosecutions.
5. Director of Public Prosecutions v Broomfield concerned the different question whether information supplied by telephone complied with a requirement for written and signed information. It had no immediate application to the present issue.

• Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant on 5 October 2016 of an offence under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and answered the stated question in the affirmative.