To the extent that the requirement to provide driver details under s.172(2) Road Traffic Act 1988 following offences of speeding and going through a red light infringed the privilege against self-incrimination under Art.6 European Convention on Human Rights it was justified as a proportionate legislative response to maintain road safety.Appellant's appeal by way of case stated against the decision of Blackfriars Crown Court on 12 July 2002 that there was a case to answer in respect of his failure to provide details, under s.172(2) Road Traffic Act 1988, of the driver of a vehicle kept by him following a conviction in respect of that failure at Marylebone Magistrates Court on 26 March 2002. The vehicle had been detected on two occasions speeding and on one occasion going through a red light, in each case by an automatic camera. At the Crown Court, the appellant argued that the requirement to provide driver details infringed his privilege against self-incrimination under Art.6 European Convention on Human Rights. The Crown Court stated a case as to whether it had erred in holding that to the extent that s.172(2) of the Act infringed the appellant's privilege against self-incrimination, it was justified by the legitimate aim of regulating the manner in which vehicles were driven on the public road and ensuring that drivers driving their vehicles in breach of the law were detected and prosecuted.HELD: (1) The court was bound by the decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Wilson (2001) (2002) RTR 37 in which it was held that s.172(2) was justified in the context of a speeding offence. (2) In any event, the court would have held that the use of s.172(a) and (b) with regard to the offences of speeding and going through a red light was a proportionate legislative response in order to maintain road safety. The offences could lead to licence endorsement and possibly disqualification. The offences were serious and not merely regulatory. For that reason the case was also indistinguishable from Brown v Stott (2001) 2 WLR 817, a drink driving case where the provision of driver details under s.172(2) was held to be justified.Appeal dismissed.

[2003] EWHC 54 (Admin)

0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar