FACTS:

On 6^th June 1995 on the M27 motorway three independent witnesses saw a blue-green Nissan Primera car being driven in a dangerous manner by a man of Asian origin. One of the witnesses made a mental note of the registration number of the car which was communicated to the police officer when he reported the dangerous driving. Inquiries made through the police national computer revealed that a Nissan Primera with that registration number had been rented to the defendant, who admitted that it had been in his possession at the relevant time and that if the car had been involved in an incident during the period he would have been the driver. Nevertheless the Defendant denied knowledge of the incident on the M27 on 6^th June1995.

The Defendant was charged with driving dangerously under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.  It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that there was no case to answer as there was no evidence that it was the Nissan Primera hired to the defendant which had been driven dangerously on the M27.  The independent witness had made no written note of the registration number, nor had given evidence of the number he passed onto the police officer and the witness did not refresh his memory from any note made by the police officer.  When giving evidence, the police officer did not testify as to the number of the car which had been supplied to him since such evidence would have been inadmissible hearsay.

The justices ruled against that submission and subsequently convicted the defendant of dangerous driving.

The defendant then appealed.

HELD:

The appeal was allowed.

There was evidence that a car of the same model as that of the defendants hire vehicle which was being driven dangerously at the relevant place and the relevant date as well as evidence that a similar car was in the defendant’s possession at the time.  There was no evidence to identify the car hired by the defendant as the vehicle in question.  It was found the defendant was wrongly convicted as there was no case to answer.

On appeal, held, although there was evidence to establish an incident of dangerous driving by a certain car, and while there was evidence that the defendant had hired a car of the same model with a certain registration number, there was nothing to link the car hired to the defendant with the car which had been seen to have been driven dangerously. An evidential void existed at the heart of the case, with the inevitable result that the defendant had no case to answer. Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed.

The appeal was allowed with costs.

Related posts:

1. Jones v Metcalfe [1967]
2. R v Mohan (John Patrick) [1976]