Failing to Provide Driver Details | Section 172

What is the Offence of Failing to Provide Driver Details?

In order to understand the offence of failing to provide driver details, it is important to look at the precise wording of the Road Traffic Act 1988 s172. In terms of the duty imposed upon the keeper of a vehicle, the Act states at subsection (2)(a):

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

At subsection (2)(b) it is provided:

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

It is important, therefore, to understand the duties imposed by the Road Traffic Act 1988 s172. It imposes similar but different duties upon 2 classes of person:

• the first class of person is the keeper of the vehicle which usually but not always means the registered keeper
• the second class is quite broad as it is “any other person”. In theory, therefore you or I could therefore be asked for information about a car that we know absolutely nothing about.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 s172 therefore places subtly different obligations upon these two classes. The more onerous requirement falls upon the keeper of the vehicle who shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give. This will include – at least – a name and usually an address. The second class – any other person – only has to give such information as it is in their power to give. Wheareas the keeper is deemed to know who has been driving his car whereas that assumption is not necessarily made of any other person.

Penalties

• Fixed penalty: 6 points and a £200 fine
• Prosecution: 6 penalty points or a discretionary period of disqualification plus a fine of up to £1000

Source:

• Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic (Offenders) Act 1988

Explanation

The most common penalty for failing to provide driver details  is a fixed penalty of 6 penalty points and a fine of £200. If you do not, or cannot, accept this penalty, you may be prosecuted. The Procurator Fiscal has 6 months to commence proceedings from the date of the allegation. The relevant date is the date on which the deadline for providing driver details elapses. It is not, therefore, the date of the “triggering” offence.

Source:

• Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 136

Potential Defences re Failing To Provide Driver Details

Statutory Defence of Reasonable Diligence

The Road Traffic Act 1988 s172 (4) provides a statutory defence for keepers. A keeper should be acquitted if he shows that he does not know who the driver was and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was. Roughly translated this means that, if a keeper does not know who the driver was, he must do his best to identify the driver.If he satisfies the court that he has done all he can, he should be acquitted.

Example:

• Keeper lends car to group of friends
• Car is clocked but the keeper does not know which of his friends was driving
• No-one owns up
• Keeper submits the details of all potential drivers

This is a “statutory” defence so it is for the keeper to prove that he exercised reasonable diligence. In the above example, in our opinion, the accused should be acquitted.

Other Defences

Other defences include:

• The documentation was never received
• Prosecution errors in the libelling of the charge
• Prosecution fails to discharge its burden in respect of “any other person”. In the case of any person who is not the keeper, the burden lies with the prosecution to prove that the accused failed to give information that it was in their power to give.

Why Instruct Us for Your Case?

Reason 1 – We Are The Pioneers

Since our inception in 2001, when our founder Graham Walker (pictured) identified a critical gap in the Scottish legal market, we have pioneered how to defend charges of running a red light. Other firms also claim this. But see when the domain was registered to see how long the firm have actually been online. Our domain was registered in 2001. We believe we were registered years in advance of any rival firm. We are invited, founder members of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers. Graham’s founding principles of specialisation, expertise, communication and client dedication remain central to the firm and to the defence of any road traffic charge.

Reason 2 – Our Statistics 

We base our success rate on 1000 independently analysed cases chosen at random. Other firms may claim even higher success rates but do not simply accept them at face value. Ask them what their case sample size was. How do they define case success? We have successfully defended sports stars, famous personalities, peers of the realm, members of the Royal Family, fellow solicitors, advocates, leading QCs and police officers. We do not name names unless the case is already in the public domain but you can see some of our reported cases here.  As we helped them, so we can help you.

Reason 3 – Our Independent Reviews

All of our quoted reviews are reviews posted on independent review sites such as Trustpilot and Review Solicitors.

Reason 4 – Our Fixed Fee

We guarantee a Fixed Fee. It does not change no matter how often we need to attend court. There is no small print. There are no hidden costs.

Reason 5 – Nationwide Representation 

Although our offices are in Glasgow, we regularly defend motorists in every Court in Scotland. On any given month, our solicitors appear in courts across the country, including Aberdeen, Dumfries, Edinburgh and Paisley. Wherever your case is being heard, we have the experience and resources to represent you effectively.

 Call: 0800 048 8696

Don’t I have a right to silence?

Not in this context, no. This was determined by the ECHR in the case of O’Halloran and Francis.

What if I name someone else as the driver?

If this is done on purpose, you could be sent to prison for attempting to pervert the course of justice.  See this BBC Article.

Are the rules different for companies?

To an extent, yes. Companies keeping vehicles have the same legal obligation as any other keeper. However, for a company to avail itself of the statutory defence, it must also prove two additional things. First it must prove that it did not keep a record of who was driving the vehicle. Second, it must show that failure to keep such records was reasonable.

But a company cannot get penalty points, right?

Right. But subsection (5) of section 172 provides that where a director or senior manager of the company caused or connived with the failure to identify the driver, that person is also guilty. Most contraventions involving company vehicles result in the company being fined. However there are instances where directors can also have points endorsed on their licence.

I am the keeper. The Notice of Intended Prosecution was served outwith 14 days. Do I have to reply?

YES. Do not fall into this trap. A Notice of Intended Prosecution and a Requirement to Identify the Driver are two separate and distinct things typically contained in the same letter. Yo must identify the driver regardless of when the requirement is made.

Call: 0800 048 8696