Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Extent of requested info under s.172 RTA 1988
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
nemo
There have been a few cases recently where PACE respondents have included their telephone number amongst the 'driver details' and, as a result, have received threatening / bullying / coercive calls from our friends on the other side of the fence.

It appears that a number of constabularies request the inclusion of a telephone number on their s.172 forms (certainly The Met do - confirmed by the NIP / s.172 which recently landed on my desk wink.gif ). Presumably, because of the line in the PACE witness statement template which reads 'ALL OF THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ON THE NIP', respondents feel they are legally bound to provide a contact number if one has been requested.

So, my question is - Does the statutory request to supply driver details under s.172 extend to supplying a phone number ?

If not, would it be an idea for the PACE template to be amended to specifically advise against providing such information ?
firefly
In my view, it's whether or not the request by the chief constable for a 'phone number is "reasonable".

I don't think giving the 'phone number to the police is wise (or necessary), for reasons given above.

The chances of being prosecuted for s.172 for not giving your 'phone number are so small as to not warrant losing any sleep.
Mika
QUOTE (nemo @ Fri, 2 Jun 2006 - 12:57) *
So, my question is - Does the statutory request to supply driver details under s.172 extend to supplying a phone number ?

S 172 isn’t that specific; so the question will be, is it reasonable for the Chief Officer of Police to request the driver’s phone number?

How much money would you put on the magistrates in a Safety Camera Partnership Court, deciding that it was an unreasonable request? unsure.gif
andypandy
Give them an old mobile number(I did, still valid, but just dont use the phone any more), use caller id, answerphone, just dont answer an unknown number. Its easy to filter out unknown tel. numbers, I dont see a big problem with handing over a telephone number
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (firefly)
The chances of being prosecuted for s.172 for not giving your 'phone number are so small as to not warrant losing any sleep.

I disagree. Jones gave all the information, save the driver's identity.
Once you don't give the info., Jones is no longer an authority.
Whilst, IMO, the High Court may well back that a 'phone number is not reasonably required, the same cannot be said of magistrates' courts, desperate to convict the suppliers of 'non-standard' responses.
There was such a case in here, where the accused was convicted because he left off something inconsequential, although I can't remember what it was.
Mika
QUOTE (jeffreyarcher @ Fri, 2 Jun 2006 - 13:12) *
There was such a case in here, where the accused was convicted because he left off something inconsequential, although I can't remember what it was.

NigelO – he omitted his date of birth and his driver number. rolleyes.gif
jeffreyarcher
Not inconsequential, then. icon_redface.gif Nonetheless, IMO it's still not worth the risk of leaving anything off.
Mr Rusty
Slightly OT, but I have often wondered about the difference between signing and providing a signature. Which does the Chief Constable's request for information require?

It seems to me that if he is requesting that the information be signed, he is confirming that he is requiring a formal statement (under duress of course) which strengthens the self-incrimination angle, if on the other hand, he is requesting a copy signature for information, then why would it not be legitimate to provide the info on a separate piece of paper like you do for a bank "specimen signature" form.

As there is no legal definition of a signature either, I wonder what confusion you could cause if you adopted a very small "x" as your official signature/mark. I don't even think there is any limitation on having only one "signature", so you could keep a particularly small/obscure one just for official forms. After all, it is the act of signing, and the potential admission of that under oath that binds the signatory, not the shape/form of the mark itself.

Sorry, I'm rambling, but it would be fun to try out different ways of confusing the scamerati just for the hell of it.
firefly
QUOTE (jeffreyarcher @ Fri, 2 Jun 2006 - 13:22) *
Not inconsequential, then. icon_redface.gif Nonetheless, IMO it's still not worth the risk of leaving anything off.
Is it worth the hassle of having plod 'phoning you up and giving you grief?

Fair enough if it were you or I (or other, more experienced members), but what about George/Georgina Bloggs who comes on here in good faith and has no knowledge of how to deal with it?

I'd be prepared to put a wager on not getting a s.172 summons for failing to give 'me 'phone number. happy.gif
g_attrill
QUOTE (Mr Rusty @ Fri, 2 Jun 2006 - 13:58) *
Slightly OT, but I have often wondered about the difference between signing and providing a signature. Which does the Chief Constable's request for information require?
[snip]


See Francis v Dpp from para 16 onwards:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/...591.html#para16

The request is that the written submission is signed, not that the signature is required.
firefly
Can a caution be given over the 'phone?!
Mika
QUOTE (firefly @ Fri, 2 Jun 2006 - 14:46) *
Can a caution be given over the 'phone?!

As long as it includes the words:
QUOTE
You do not have to say anything……
blink.gif
Alfa Man
A very silly response - what if you don't have a teleephone number?! You can't put it down if you 'don't' have one, now can you?! tongue.gif

You have an address, a pen to sign statements....what will they ask for next, the size of your waist measurments?!

When asked profession - I put 'professional person'...me being an Architect, i am deemed to be one. Therefore I am not lying.
Mika
In my opinion, dpp v Broomfield is authority that the information cannot be provided by phone:
QUOTE
[25]In my judgment, therefore, the Crown Court at Bristol were wrong in finding that the provision of information orally was sufficient to meet the requirements of s 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and they were therefore wrong to allow the appeal in those circumstances.
3some.gif
PaulD
Yeah - whenever I'm asked for 'occupation' on official forms, I simply put 'self-employed', which I am, but it tells them bugger all about what I do! cool.gif
PeterG
So, my question is - Does the statutory request to supply driver details under s.172 extend to supplying a phone number ?


I may stand corrected but it is not compulosry yet to have a phone number in the UK and so therefore one cannot supply a phone number. Others may advise different to the request of a phone number under a s172.
Again one may not be the RK of the phone line!

PeterG
firefly
QUOTE (PeterG @ Fri, 2 Jun 2006 - 21:22) *
So, my question is - Does the statutory request to supply driver details under s.172 extend to supplying a phone number ?
Personally, I'd say it ain't worth the potential hassle. Also, I don't believe the CPS would prosecute for s.172 for failing to give a phone number.

I think they'd be laughed out of court. blink.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.