Marshall v Crown Prosecution Service

Marshall v Crown Prosecution Service

The Magistrates' Court was entitled to find that Mrs Marshall had not exercised reasonable diligence herself and to refuse to exclude the probability that such diligence would have revealed the driver's identity. The court's reasoning was adequate and not irrational.

Parties
Claimant: Barbara Marshall; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal by Way of Case Stated
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Failure to Provide Driver Information, Reasonable Diligence, Statutory Defence Under Section 172(4) Road Traffic Act 1988
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Failure to Provide Driver Information Reasonable Diligence Statutory Defence Under Section 172(4) Road Traffic Act 1988

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara Marshall

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal by Way of Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Magistrates' Court misdirect itself in determining whether the appellant established her defence under section 172(4)?
  2. 2 Did the Magistrates' Court give adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant's defence?
  3. 3 Was the Magistrates' Court's finding Wednesbury unreasonable?

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrates' Court was entitled to find that Mrs Marshall had not exercised reasonable diligence herself and to refuse to exclude the probability that such diligence would have revealed the driver's identity. The court's reasoning was adequate and not irrational.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Respondent awarded 75% of £2511 in costs, summarily assessed.