Magistrates Association Correspondence

regarding unsigned forms

Safe Speed:

Working to establish your rights within the law.

Introduction

We wrote to the Magistrates Association for clarification of the unsigned forms loophole. Our original letter and replies are below.

Our letter:

We sent the following by post on SafeSpeed letterhead.

7th May 2003

The Magistrates Association
28 Fitzroy Square
London
W1T 6DD

Dear Sirs,

I operate a road safety web site and speculation is rife (to say the least) about failure to sign notices to owner under S172 of the RTA 1988.

It appears that RTA 1988 s172 neglects to require the person supplying information to sign the reply form. As such the form is not admissible as evidence in court and a case for exceeding the speed limit should fail. Since it appears that s172 can be complied with by returning the form unsigned, it also appears that a s172 prosecution should fail.

The Police and the CPS are frequently citing DPP-v-Broomfield 2002 in the High Court as a case that closes the loophole. In this case the judge appears to have made an obiter dictum remark about signing the form. Naturally if it is accepted that the remark was obiter dictum, the law will be unaffected.

I’m quite certain that the present situation is causing mass confusion amongst the Police and the public alike and I would welcome the chance to help set the record straight.

Would you please, in the best interests of the public, let me have your considered opinion about the state of the law in this area and give me permission to publish your statement to the Internet? Are you going to be providing advice to your members about the apparent loophole?

Several thousand people each week are visiting our web site to learn about the “unsigned forms” loophole.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely

Paul Smith

An email reply

Subject: S172RTA
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:34:17 +0100
From: "Jenny Bracey" <jenny.bracey@magistrates-association.org.uk>
To: <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>

Paul

Thank you for your letter of 7 May regarding the matter of failure to sign notices to owner under S172 RTA 1988. This issue is being considered at the next meeting of the MA Road Traffic Committee on 22 May and a reply of the Association's position will follow that date. We believe the legal issue to be as follows: Section 172(2) reads:

Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies -

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

The section says nothing about being required to sign anything. By contrast, however, s.12 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 reads:

Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which this subsection applies-

(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and
(b) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion, the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.

The advice some motorists are receiving is that they should provide the s.172 information, but not sign the form. If the form is not signed it is not admissible under s.12. Should the police prosecute under s.172 and claim that a failure to sign the form amounts to a failure to supply information?

Regards

Jenny Bracey

Committee Officer
Magistrates Association

Further information provided to us by telephone on 22nd May:

After the meeting of the Road Traffic Committee, Elliot Griffiths telephoned me as spokesperson for the Committee: We worked together on the telephone to create the following precise statement, which Mr Griffiths agreed properly summarized the position:

"Because the law is evolving we do not think it appropriate to make any comment at this time."

In particular, I understood that they have an eye on the outcome of the ongoing Dwight Yorke case. Mr Griffiths felt there was now little point in replying in writing to my original letter (quoted above), and I agreed. So the Magistrates Association have gone as far as they can go with this for us. They have been really pleasant and helpful at every turn. Thanks are due to Elliot and Jenny for their considerable efforts at assistance.

Promoting intelligent road safety

We have a strict editorial policy regarding factual content. If any fact anywhere on this web site can be shown to be incorrect we promise to remove it or correct it as soon as possible.