South Shields man cleared of driving charge after prosecutors fail to provide evidence

Kyle Rogers, 32, of Caer Urfa Close, South Shields, was accused of deliberately failing to comply with two written requests from police to name the driver of a car caught speeding.

Although he had owned the Vauxhall motor, Mr Rogers told magistrates in South Tyneside he had sold it before the offence took place in February 2019 in North Tyneside.

He also insisted he had replied to a Section 172 notice sent by police to his home in South Shields, which he shared with his then girlfriend, on March 1, 2019.

Such notices require the registered owner of a vehicle to inform police of the identity of a driver at a particular time.

When police failed to receive it, a second and final notice – issued due the car being caught on camera speeding and remaining registered to him - was sent six weeks later to the same property.

Last year, Mr Rogers was summoned to court on the same charge and the case was proved in his absence when he did not appear.

He was able to persuade magistrates to re-open the case on the grounds he had again not received the court summons, due to moving from his registered address.

Mr Rogers took to the witness stand to insist he had responded to the first 172 demand by letter and was not aware of the second because had had split with his partner and she had not forwarded his mail.

He told the court he sold the car in February or March and had moved to Durham to live with his mum around the same time, since returning to South Tyneside.

And he also claimed he had informed the DVLA about selling the car and had contacted the South Shields man who allegedly bought it and notified him he had been caught speeding.

Prosecutor Stephen Davies said Northumbria Police had a “robust” system in place for logging letters sent and received in relation of speed camera-related notices.

Warren Ridley, defending, told magistrates: “Whilst it’s a road traffic offence, it’s still the same burden of proof on the Crown. You either accept his evidence or you don’t.”

Magistrates said prosecutors had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Rogers had failed to respond and found him not guilty.

Mr Rogers had pleaded not guilty to a charge of failing to give information relating to the identification of the driver when required.