AC-2025-LON-000004 - [2025] EWHC 2798 (Admin)

At the trial, the justices found that the Respondent had not complied with the statutory requirement to identify the driver of the vehicle on 17 January 2024.

The Respondent gave evidence at the trial. He told the court he is Lithuanian but that he has no difficulties understanding or reading English. I note that when the Respondent appeared before me it was clear that his English was excellent, and he fully understood both what was said and the nature of the proceedings.

He explained to the Magistrates that as of 17 January 2024, his mother-in-law was a director of the company. She lived in Leicester, and she was the keeper of the motor vehicle.

When he received the Notice and response form in the name of the company, the Respondent said that he sent them to his mother-in-law for her to complete. I note that the covering letter from the police states;

“ONLY THE ADDRESSEE MUST COMPLETE THE DETAILS OVERLEAF. DO NOT PASS THIS FORM TO ANOTHER PERSON.

As the recipient of this form you must fully complete section A of the form overleaf and section B and C if required.”

The Respondent said he forgot to reply to the first Notice and response form that was addressed to him at his home address. He said he did reply to the reminder letter.

The Respondent’s account was that he had spoken to his mother-in-law and asked her who the driver of the motor vehicle had been on 17 January 2024. She told him that she did not know.

The Respondent said that he had not been the driver of the motor vehicle on 17 January 2024 and that the person in the photograph he had been sent by the police was not him.

The Respondent said he did not know who had been driving the motor vehicle on 17 January 2024 and he did not believe that his mother-in-law could recall either.

He said that he did not include his mother-in-law’s details on the response form because he did not believe that she had been driving the motor vehicle on 17 January 2024 and, in any event, he believed the police must have known that she had been the keeper of the vehicle at that time.

The justices found the Respondent not guilty on Charge 1 on the basis that he denied being the driver of the motor vehicle on 17 January 2024 and the photographic evidence was inclusive as to the identity of the driver.

The justices also found the Respondent not guilty on Charge 2. At paragraph 6(d) of the stated Case, when dealing with the law, they referred to;

“the defence under s.172(4), where a person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was.”

Their reasons for the acquittal, as set out in the stated Case, included;

“7(c)…he was not responsible for the vehicle at the time of the offence, and covered due diligence by trying to ID the vehicle and trying try (sic) to get his mother-in-law to respond and provide the information, however the mother-in-law did not provide this to the respondent.

7(d) The defendant could not therefore have completed Part C of the form”.