Businesses cannot rely on Atkinson v DPP
Business cannot rely on the liberal interpretation in Atkinson v DPP (duty to give information). The High Court excluded business because of the implied duty to keep records. Ensure records are properly maintained in the event of a road traffic offence being committed. Aktinson v DPP
Recent Interpretation of Duty to Give Informtion
Recently the High Court liberally interpreted the provision requiring a vehicle keeper to provide details of a driver. This is good news for vehicle owners unable to reasonably ascertain a driver’s identity when required to provide details under section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988. Atkinson v DPP.
Duty to give information
Duty to give information Road Traffic 1988 s. 172. R. (Purnell) v Snaresbrook Crown Court In a recent driving case, the registered keeper of a vehicle successfully appealed against the ruling of a Crown Court judge. The Crown Court had applied the wrong legal test when interpreting the duty imposed…
Duty to provide information
Road Traffic Act 1988, section 172. It may be tempting to decide that punishment can be avoided by ignoring the requirement to provide information under this section. Please don’t think so. This piece of legislation has teeth, and rather an unpleasant sting in its tail! When an offence has been…