Fail to Give Information About Driver – Withdrawn

withdrawing charge of fail to give information about driverOur client was charged with failing to notify driver of motor vehicle. It was alleged that our client’s car was involved with another vehicle (parked on the side of the road) on a street. Both vehicles sustained significant damage. The driver of the vehicle registered to our client walked away. Later, the police arrived and identified through the registration of the vehicle that it belonged to our client. Our client gave a no comment interview and was subsequently charged with failing to give the name of the driver of his vehicle, or failing to make reasonable enquiries to ascertain who the driver of the motor vehicle was. Due to a successful defence, the prosecution had to resort to withdrawing the charge of Fail to Give Information About Driver.

Shaun Pascoe represented the client at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on the following charges:

Our client avoided prosecution for a serious offence under the Road Safety Act, which would have seen his license cancelled and disqualified for a period of 2 years (upon conviction). The offence under section 60 of the Road Safety Act requires the police to make a correct demand for information as to who was driving his vehicle on the date of the accident. The requirement is subject to the general rule against self-incrimination (i.e. no comment response), requires an answer, and subjects a person to an offence and potential punishment if they do not.

During case conference discussions, material was sought from the police (diary notes from the day in question) to ascertain when an unambiguous request for information was made to our client. The material obtained assisted in the defence of our client as it clearly showed that a correct demand for information pursuant to Section 60 of the RSA was not made. Apparently, the police officer appeared to have cautioned our client that he did not have to answer the questions.

As a result of the findings, the prosecution was persuaded to withdraw the charge of Fail to Give Information About Driver. The prosecution also indicated that they intended to get further advice as to whether they should proceed with the two charges (Use Carriage Service to Harass and Breach Parole).


Shaun PascoeShaun Pascoe

Shaun is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist and a partner of the firm. Shaun runs the Heidelberg branch of Doogue + George.

He is an experienced criminal law solicitor and works hard to achieve the best possible outcomes for his clients. Shaun handles indictable and summary criminal offences and is an expert at criminal defence for both contested and non-contested cases.

Visit Shaun's profile to read more about his background and experience.

DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 29/09/2016