Pledge v R

Where a notice of intended prosecution is required, reasonable diligence does not require the police to investigate speculative inconsistencies between a company’s public contact address and the registered keeper address supplied through the usual DVLA route. Reliance on that official information may satisfy the exception in Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, section 2(3)(a), unless the police have been alerted to a real possibility that it is wrong. Additional enquiries made during an investigation do not of themselves impose a higher standard of diligence.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Lewes of dangerous driving contrary to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He had not been warned at the scene of a possible prosecution.

Within five days, the police sent a notice of intended prosecution to the registered keeper address obtained through the Police National Computer and the DVLA. The address named the appellant but was wrong because of an error in the DVLA records. The notice was returned after the 14-day period. The Recorder held that the reasonable-diligence exception applied.

The appeal challenged whether the police, having found a different Sussex address on the business website, should have sent a further notice there within 14 days.

Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to find that the prosecution had exercised reasonable diligence.

1. Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 ordinarily prevents conviction for dangerous driving unless the accused was warned, served with a summons, or served with a notice of intended prosecution within 14 days. The relevant notice could be served on the driver or the registered keeper. Failure to meet that requirement is excused by section 2(3)(a) where the relevant name and address could not, with reasonable diligence, have been ascertained in time.

2. Reasonable diligence was assessed by reference to the steps reasonably required in the circumstances. The police officer promptly investigated, spoke to the appellant, and then used the usual route of obtaining the registered keeper’s address through the Police National Computer, which drew its information from the DVLA. He had no reason to suspect that the official address was inaccurate.

3. The officer’s knowledge of a different business address on the company website did not materially indicate an error in the registered keeper address. A company’s contact address may differ from the address registered for a vehicle. Reasonable diligence did not require speculative service of duplicate notices at all addresses found during the investigation, nor did the officer’s additional enquiries create a heightened standard of diligence.

4. The conclusion accorded with Clarke v Mould [1945] 2 All ER 551 and Haughton v Harrison [1976] R. T. R. 208, where reliance on inaccurate registration information was treated as consistent with reasonable diligence. The issue was for the judge, not the jury: R v Bolkis (1934) 24 Cr App R 19.

The statutory exception applied despite the DVLA error. The conviction therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against conviction: [2019] EWCA Crim 912.
• Crown Court at Lewes: On 17 October 2018, the appellant was convicted by a jury of dangerous driving contrary to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. On 18 October 2018, he received a four-month sentence suspended for 12 months, a 12-month driving disqualification, and an extended retest requirement.