In a case where there was a question as to whether the defendant was the driver who committed the offence in the light of Creed v Scott (1976) and the fact that he could be identified by the company he worked for there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant.Appeal by way of case stated from the Magistrates' Court. On 21 June 2001 a driver was stopped by the police for allegedly driving at a speed in excess of 70 miles an hour. The driver failed to produce a certificate of insurance when requested. The driver gave as his name and address that of the defendant. In addition the driver stated that he worked for a particular company. A police check confirmed that the car was registered to that company. A summonses was served on the defendant in respect of the alleged road traffic offences. The defendant did not appear personally before the Magistrates' Court but was represented by counsel. The magistrates held that there had been evidence adduced in respect of the main ingredients of the offences, that that evidence had not been discredited but that they were not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who had committed the offences. The claimant appealed by way of case stated and the magistrates posed the question as to whether there was sufficient evidence to entitle them to convict the defendant.HELD: The facts of the present case were very similar to those in Creed v Scott (1976) RTR. In light of that case and the additional fact that there was evidence to identify the defendant by reference to the company that he worked for and to whom the car was registered there was sufficient evidence in the present case to entitle the Magistrates' Court to convict the defendant.Case remitted to the Magistrates' Court.
Next post: R v Z (2003)
Previous post: EILEEN CAVALIERE v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION (2003)