Wild, June

June Wild was convicted in May 2013 of failure to give information relating to the identification of the driver of a vehicle.

Ms Wild was ordered to pay a fine of £240 (reduced to £165 on appeal), a victim surcharge of £15 and £300 in prosecution costs. Ms Wild also had her licence endorsed with six penalty points.

The CCRC received an application for review of the conviction in October 2014.

Ms Wild had been prosecuted for failing to provide information in response to a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) as to the identity of the driver of her vehicle at the time a motoring offence was committed.

After reviewing the NIP and Ms Wild’s response to it, the CCRC found that Ms Wild have in fact given such information as she was required to give, and therefore the elements of the offence were not made out.

The CCRC also considered that the NIP was defective in that the requirements it imposed were clearly not what was intended either by statute or the police.

Furthermore, the NIP and its incorporated Reply to Notice Form were defective in that they did not make reasonably clear what Ms Wild had to do to avoid committing an offence.

The CCRC concluded that because an element of the offence was not made out and/or Ms Wild was prejudiced in her defence by a defective NIP, there was a real possibility the Crown Court would not uphold the conviction.

The CCRC referred the conviction in November 2016.

The Crown Court quashed the conviction in June 2017.