Whiteside v The Director of Public Prosecutions

Whiteside v The Director of Public Prosecutions

Section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 does not require knowledge of the obligation to provide information; service is effective if the notice is properly posted to the registered address; lack of actual knowledge does not automatically provide a defence under section 172(7)(b), but in appropriate cases, if the defendant shows it was not reasonably practicable to respond, the defence may apply.

Parties
Claimant: Christopher Angus Whiteside; Defendant: The Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Documents, Mens Rea, Strict Liability Offences, Defences Under Road Traffic Act, Reasonable Practicability
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Service of Documents Mens Rea Strict Liability Offences Defences Under Road Traffic Act Reasonable Practicability

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Angus Whiteside

Claimant

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 require knowledge (mens rea) of the obligation to provide information?
  2. 2 Is service of notice effective if not actually received by the defendant?
  3. 3 Does lack of knowledge of the notice provide a defence under section 172(7)(b)?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 does not require knowledge of the obligation to provide information; service is effective if the notice is properly posted to the registered address; lack of actual knowledge does not automatically provide a defence under section 172(7)(b), but in appropriate cases, if the defendant shows it was not reasonably practicable to respond, the defence may apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed