swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Road Traffic - From: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 33 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Bryan Haulage Limited v Vehicle Inspectorate (No 1) [TT 1 of 2002]
2002
TT
Road Traffic, Licensing
The tribunal set out the correct approach to findings involving revocation of an operator's licence (or disqualification): "However, in order to take action under s. 26 or to make a finding of loss of good repute under s. 27 or make an order of disqualification of directors under s. 28 of the Act, the Traffic Commissioner was obliged to make an assessment of the nature, number and gravity of the breaches of regulations revealed by Mr Prime's investigations and whether there was any evidence of instruction, encouragement or acquiescence on the part of the Appellant . . . It is a further requirement that the Traffic Commissioner consider the weight, if any, to be attached to the Appellant's general record, performance, reputation and enforcement history."
1 Citers
Jubb v Director of Public Prosecutions (2002} 167 JP 50; [2002] EWHC 2317 Admin
2002
McCombe J
Road Traffic
The arrested driver was given a warning under section 7(7) before two specimens of breath were obtained. The officer thought the specimens unreliable being of uneven volume. The officer then gave the appellant the chance to repeat the breath analysis procedure, but stressed that the appellant was under no obligation to do so. The appellant declined. He was then required to provide a specimen of blood. One of the issues on the appeal was whether the officer was entitled to require a specimen of blood in those circumstances. It was argued on the appellant's behalf that if the officer believed that the breath test device would provide a reliable reading if used again he should have required a second set of specimens of breath rather than requiring a specimen of blood. Held: That argument was rejected . The officer was lawfully entitled to invite the appellant to give further specimens of breath, as he did, but he could not require the appellant to do so. The effect of section 7(3), however, was that he was entitled, in the circumstances, to require a specimen of blood or urine, and by section 7(4) (which I have not read) it was for the officer to choose whether it should be blood rather than urine.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(7) 11(3)(b)
1 Citers
Regina v France [2002] EWCA Crim 1419
2002
CACD
Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic
Regina v Browning [2002] 1 CAR (S) 377
2002
CACD
Mance LJ
Road Traffic, Criminal Sentencing
The defendant, a lorry driver veered from the road whilst sending a text message. He killed a man in a lay-by. Held: The sentence of 5 years was upheld. Mance LJ said: "The use of a mobile phone to read and compose text messages while driving is a highly perilous activity. Even the use of a hand-held mobile phone by a driver whilst moving, a much too common feature of driving today, is self-evidently risky. But the risks of reading and composing, text messages appears to us of a wholly different order and to be to use the judges words, of the most "blatant nature". Browning had pleaded guilty but there had to be a Newton hearing. Browning's evidence was not accepted so he was not entitled to full credit for his plea.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Broomfield 166 Justice of the Peace 736; (2002) EWHC 1962 (Admin)
2002
QBD
Judge Wilkie QC
Road Traffic
If a notice is in reasonable form and requires the information to be given in a particular form then that form must be used. A purpose of seeking the information in section 172 of the 1988 Act was to enable proof of certain matters, including the identity of the driver of the vehicle, to be given in summary proceedings and, accordingly, there was an important reason why the information should be given in writing and, as the judge held, in the form in which it had been requested.
Road Traffic Act 1988 172
1 Cites
1 Citers
Burdis v Livsey; CA 2002 - [2003] QB 36; [2002] EWCA Civ 510
Henderson v Jaouen and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 75
1 Feb 2002
CA
Personal Injury, Road Traffic
[ Bailii ]
Gregory v Director of Public Prosecution [2002] EWHC 385 (Admin)
19 Feb 2002
QBD
Forbes J, Keene LJ
Road Traffic
An analyst had given evidence. The defence called a professor, a toxicologist, who gave expert evidence in relation to what he said were the possible consequences which could have occurred, having regard to the evidence which the prosecution had given. The possibility arose from the prosecution's own evidence as to what had happened with the sample of blood, once it had been split into two equal portions of 2 millimetres and placed in vials which were capable of taking 6 millimetres. His evidence was that: "if a smaller amount of blood is placed in the vial then there can be too much preservative for equilibrium to occur when it is heated if the space head space is analysed by gas chromatography the extra fluoride will cause the analytical result to show an alcohol level which is in fact too much, that is higher than what is actually in the blood sample." The crown court had taken the view that this was all hypothetical. Held: Forbes J: "In my view, to the extent that the Crown Court appear to have regarded his evidence as merely theoretical, it fell into error. Professor Forrester's evidence that the prosecution analysis of the appellant's blood sample was not reliable or accurate was based to a significant extent upon the following uncontroversial facts: (1) that the capacity of the sample vials was 6 millimetres; (2) that fluoride was present in the vials as a preservative; (3) that an approximate amount of 2 millimetres of blood had been placed in each sample vial; and (4) that the method of analysis which would have been used to measure the alcohol content of the blood sample was headspace gas chromatography." and "It was in respect of the foregoing, uncontroversial facts, all of which had been given in evidence, that Professor Forrester gave unchallenged evidence as to his scientific opinion, namely that, given the amount of blood and fluoride in the sample vial, the headspace gas chromatography method of analysis would give a reading which was about 8 per cent too high." Keene LJ: "It is open to a defendant when charged with excess alcohol, to call evidence to show that the analysis carried out on behalf of the prosecution was not done properly and that the results therefore cannot be relied on."
1 Citers
Annona Maria James v Stuart Fairley [2002] EWCA Civ 162
21 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward, And, Lord Justice Longmore
Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic
The claimant appealed dismissal of her claim for damages for serious personal injury suffered by her as a child. She had walked out in front of a car. In poor visibility, and with dark clothing, the defendant may not have had opportunity to avoid her. Held: There was no strong evidence as to her behaviour. She was found not to have stopped at the kerb. It was a counsel of perfection, to say the defendant ought to have seen and reacted at the very split second that she stepped off the kerb. Even if he ought to have seen her, he would not have had opportunity to stop. There was no basis for a finding of negligence.
[ Bailii ]
Irwin v Stevenson [2002] EWCA Civ 359
22 Feb 2002
CA
Potter LJ, Sir Anthony Evans
Road Traffic, Negligence
The claimant had followed vehicles on his motor cycle for a time until he thought it safe to overtake. As he overtook the line of vehicles, the defendant tractor driver pulled out into him causing an accident. The defendant appealed against an order finding him 50% liable. Held. The judge had glossed over the fact that the defendant behaving correctly could not have avoided the accident, and "it appears that the motorcycle moved swiftly out from behind the Transit van in a double overtaking manoeuvre which the defendant had no reason to anticipate, and that that was the overwhelming cause of the accident. I would allow the appeal and hold that the defendant was not negligent."
[ Bailii ]
Director of Public Prosecutions v Robertson Times, 13 March 2002; Gazette, 11 April 2002
4 Mar 2002
QBD
Criminal Practice, Road Traffic, Police
The motorist had been stopped. He had not failed the roadside breathalyzer test, but the officer continued and arrested him. He was acquitted. The prosecutor appealed. Held: The use of the section 6 breathalyzer procedure did not exclude the officer relying on the powers contained in section 4 of the Act. Where the officer believed an offence had been committed, he did have power to use that section. Accordingly the arrest was lawful, and the evidence subsequently acquired should not have been excluded.
Road Traffic Act 1988 4 6 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78(1)
Andrew Drummond v Regina [2002] EWCA Crim 527; [2002] RTR 21
7 Mar 2002
CACD
His Honour Judge Mckinnon
Crime, Road Traffic, Human Rights
The appellant had been convicted of causing death by careless driving with excess alcohol. He said that he had taken alcohol after stopping driving but before being tested. He challenged the weight of the burden of proof ascribed by the statute. The judge had directed the jury that he faced a persuasive burden of establishing that he would not have been over the limit. He said this infringed the assumption of innocence. Held: Any restriction on the presumption of innocence must be justified. The offence differs from those previously considered in that the test is not as to the intention of the accused, but as to the results of a scientific test. Any inexactness in the scientific test will work in favour of the accused, it is the accused who has done something, by drinking after an accident, to make the scientific test less reliable, and it is within the control of the defendant to say how much he had drunk. The interference with the defendant's human rights was reasonable and no more than was necessary.
Road Traffic Act 1988 3A - Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Brown v Procurator Fiscal, Falkirk [2002] ScotHC 25
8 Mar 2002
HCJ
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Hamilton and Lord Morison
Crime, Road Traffic
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the machine used to take his sample of breath did not conform to the necessary type. It had been manufactured by an independent company. Though not approved it was identical to the approved machine. He was convicted on the basis that approval was of a type of a machine, not of a machine.
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Steadman v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 03 May 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002
15 Apr 2002
QBD
Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Keith
Road Traffic, Crime
The motorist was to be asked to take a breath test at the police station. The defendant was asked if he was on medication, and he produced a pill. The officer went ahead wit the test. At court the defendant said that he should first have sought medical advice to see whether he was fit to be tested. Held: The breath test was not as invasive as the blood test, and therefore less rigorous care was needed. There was no need for the officer to call a doctor in these circumstances. The Wade requirements applied only when the officer was requiring a blood sample.
Road Traffic Act 1988& 5(1)(a) 7(1) 7(3)(a) 7(4)
1 Cites
Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Times, 16 May 2002; Gazette, 30 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 595; [2002] RTR 446
2 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice May and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic, Local Government
The claimant sought damages, alleging that an accident occurred as a result of the defendant highway authority's negligence in failing to mark the road properly. A 'Slow' sign had become faded and had not been maintained. Held: The judge had failed to apply the Lavis case, which had held that such omissions were not a duty imposed on the authority under the 1980 Act, and accordingly they were not negligent for having failed to do so. There were not such exceptional circumstances as would be needed to find such a duty. The sign would have been "no more than a warning of the need to do that which should have been obvious to her in any event as she drove up from the dip."
Highways Act 1980 41 - Road Traffic Act 1988 39
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Brown v Gallagher Times, 03 June 2002
15 May 2002
HCJ
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, Lord Hamilton and Lord Morison
Road Traffic, Scotland
The appellant contended that the Intoximeter which had been used to measure the level of alcohol in his breath, had not been manufactured by the approved manufacturer, and did not therefore satisfy the type approval, and that the inconsistency in the way it reacted to mouth alcohol as opposed to breath alcohol meant that it was not reliable. Held: The court (in Browne) had previously decided that devices not manufactured by Intoximeter Inc could be used. The tests acknowledged the difficulty in reading mouth alcohol consistently, and this inconsistency did not defeat the validity of the use of the measuring device.
Road Traffic Act 1998 5(1) - Breath Analysis Devices (Scotland) Approval 1998
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina (Westminster City Council) v Parking Adjudicator Times, 06 June 2002; Gazette, 11 July 2002; [2002] EWHC 1007 (Admin); [2003] RTR 1
22 May 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Elias
Road Traffic
The adjudicator sought, when deciding an appeal against a parking penalty, to take account of the applicant's mitigating circumstances. He had reduced the penalty to zero. Held: The reference to a discretion allowed where 'the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case' did not allow for mitigation derived from the appellant's circumstances.
Road Traffic Act 1991 Sch6 para 2(4)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civ 801
22 May 2002
CA
Latham LJ, Brooke LJ, Hart J
Road Traffic, Negligence
The claimant pedestrian had been injured when hit by a car driven by the defendant as she stepped into the roadway. Both parties appealed against the assessment of contributory negligence. The claimant had a blood alcohol level three times that which would have been lawful for a driver. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The judge's apportionment could not be characterised as plainly wrong. Latham LJ said: "But nonetheless, bearing in mind the fact that this court has consistently imposed on the drivers of cars a high burden to reflect the fact that a car is potentially a dangerous weapon, I find it difficult to see how I could properly categorise the judge's apportionment in this case as plainly wrong."
An appeal court should not interfere with the judge's assessment of contributory negligence unless his conclusion is plainly wrong.
Brooke LJ reiterated that it must be borne in mind always that a motor car is a potentially lethal instrument.
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Derbyshire v Slaughter [2002] EWCA Civ 901
28 May 2002
CA
Latham LJ
Road Traffic, Negligence, Personal Injury
[ Bailii ]
Noble, Regina v [2002] EWCA Crim 1713
24 Jun 2002
CACD
Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic
The defendant had been convicted of dangerous driving and causing six deaths by dangerous driving, all from one incident. He appealed against consecutive sentences totalling fifteen years. Held. Consecutive terms should not normally be imposed for offences which arise out of the same incident. The consecutive sentences for causing several deaths by dangerous driving were quashed. Notwithstanding the numerous deaths there was a single act of dangerous driving.
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Noble Times, 11 July 2002; Gazette, 21 August 2002
24 Jun 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Davis and Judge John Griffith Williams, QC
Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic
The defendant appealed his sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. He had killed six people, and been sentenced to three concurrent terms ten years, consecutive to others of five years. Held: The element of consecutive sentencing was wrong. This was a case involving all the aggravating features, and exceptionally justified the imposition of the maximum term, but there were not separate offences to justify the consecutive element. The number of deaths caused was important, but remained only one of several considerations.
1 Cites
Director of Public Prosecutions v Memery Times, 09 July 2002; [2002] EWHC Admin 1720; [2003] RTR 18
4 Jul 2002
QBD
Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Gibbs
Road Traffic
The Crown Court had concluded that the intoximeter EC/IR was not a validly approved device or if it was that it was unreasonable for the Secretary of State to have approved it since it was a device which detected mouth alcohol, i.e. was liable to give a false reading by failing to distinguish mouth alcohol from the alcohol in the exhaled alreolar (deep lung) breath. The prosecution appealed. Held: It was not open to a court to look at whether it was Wednesbury unreasonable for the secretary to approve a type of machine. The issue was as to the admissibility of evidence. Any challenge as to reliability was a separate issue. The ability to detect mouth alcohol was not relevant where experts had approved the machine.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(1)(a)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Director of Public Prosecutions v Broomfield [2002] EWHC 1962 (Admin)
8 Aug 2002
Admn
Wilkie QC J
Road Traffic
Road Traffic Act 1988 172(3)
[ Bailii ]
Brown v Procurator Fiscal, Falkirk [2002] ScotHC 125
24 Sep 2002
HCJ
Lord Cameron Of Lochbroom And Lord Justice Clerk And Lord Maclean
Road Traffic
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He said that the machine used to measure the alcohol in his breath did not have type approval. The schedule to Approval 1998 for the purposes of section 7(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act referred to "the device known as the Intoximeter EC/IR manufactured by Intoximeters Inc, of St Louis, Missouri, United States of America, composed of the Intoximeter EC/IR, the Intoximeter EC/IR gas delivery system by BOC limited the software version EC/IR UK 5.23." The Sheriff held that the device conformed to type approval in terms of the manufacture, although it had not been manufactured by Intoximeters Inc of St Louis. Held: The appeal failed. The Sheriff correctly determined that whether or not the particular device was approved did not turn on the identity of the manufacturer.
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a) - Breath Analysis Devices (Scotland) Approval 1998
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Maud) v Castle Point Borough Council Gazette, 13 March 2003
2 Oct 2002
CA
Lords Justice Kennedy, Buxton and Keene
Licensing, Road Traffic, Local Government
The council decided after consultation and advice to issue licences for hackney carriages, removing the limit on the number of such licences, and allowing Hackney Carriages vehicles to pick up passengers from cab ranks. The taxi owners sought to challenge the decision by way of judicial review. Held: The section allowed the council to restrict the number of licences, only if satisfied that there was no unmet need. The council had not taken into account any irrelevant or improper matter, and the review was refused. The imposition of restrictions on some licences would create a second class system, and the council was correct not to do this.
Transport Act 1985 16 - Town Police Clauses Act 1847
Zagato Lancia Borkwood Engineering Ltd v Parking Appeals Adjudicator [2002] EWCA Civ 1449
4 Oct 2002
CA
Road Traffic
[ Bailii ]
Purdue v Devon Fire and Rescue Service [2002] EWCA Civ 1538
9 Oct 2002
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice May And Mr Justice Bodey
Road Traffic, Negligence, Personal Injury
The claimant was severely injured when, as he emerged through traffic lights as they turned green. He was in a collision with a fire engine driving in response to an emergency call-out. The driver of the fire engine said the claimant should have seen the lights. The officers were not sounding the wailing alarm. The Regulations allowed a specific but limited exemption for emergency vehicles from compliance with traffic lights. Held: The evidence from the fire officers to suggest that the claimant should have seen them coming was not convincing. The decision reached by the recorder was capable of being reached from the evidence before him. Both the regulations and the services own code of conduct required an emergency vehicle in this situation to give way. The driver had not done so. However: "With some hesitation, I am driven to conclude that a properly observant driver would and should have so noticed the fire engine and that Mr Purdue failed to do so. I think that this failure amounts to a want of observation and thus a want of due care. Accordingly, in my judgment there was a degree of contributory negligence but, for the reasons advanced by Mr Hillier, I do not think that that degree was great." The claimant was found to be 20% liable.
Traffic Signs And General Directions Order 1994 (1994 No 1519)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Karia, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions; Admn 10-Oct-2002 - [2002] EWHC 2175 (Admin); (2002) 166 JP 753
LPC Group Plc, Regina (on the Application Of) v Leicester City Council [2002] EWHC 2485 (Admin)
18 Oct 2002
Admn
Sir Christopher Bellamy QC
Road Traffic
Challenge to parking scheme. Held: As to section 122 of the 1984 Act, if the Defendant has not had proper regard to the matters set out in section 122(1) and (2) it did not direct its mind to matters it was bound to consider.
Section 122(1) requires the local authority to exercise its functions to secure two objectives, namely "the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic" , and "the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the premises" . The exercise of functions to achieve those twin objectives is, however, expressed to be "so far as practicable", having regard to the matters specified in section 122(2).
Whether the defendant took into account the relevant statutory considerations must be ascertained primarily from the document "Supporting Information" . That document constitutes the statutory statement setting out the reasons why the authority proposed to make the order, and is required to be deposited and made publicly available pursuant to Schedule 2 of the 1996 Regulations: see, in particular, paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 2. This statement of reasons must be prepared and deposited before the stage of objections is reached.
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 1 122
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Henderson v Cooke [2002] EWCA Civ 1557
21 Oct 2002
CA
Road Traffic, Personal Injury
Apportionment of blame in road traffic accident.
[ Bailii ]
Kennedy v Crown Prosection Service [2002] EWHC 2297 (Admin)
6 Nov 2002
Admn
Road Traffic
Road Traffic Act 1988 3A 5
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Pearson) v Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and Another Times, 18 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2482 (Admin)
6 Nov 2002
QBD
Maurice Kay J
Road Traffic, Human Rights, Criminal Practice
The appellant challenged the fact that the details of his conviction for driving with excess alcohol had not been removed from his driving licence despite it being a spent conviction under the 1974 Act. The result was that he had been unable to find work as a driver. Held: The retention of the records was not a breach of the applicant's human right to privacy. The article was not engaged, although he might have considered an action for breach of statutory duty.
The claimant objected to having to effectively disclose a road traffic conviction to a new employer where though it would be spent under the 1974 Act, the 1988 Act required details of it to remain on his driving licence. Held: Article 8 was not engaged. Maurice Kay J spoke of the 1974 Act: 'The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act confers certain privileges . . It does not attempt to go beyond the grant of those limited privileges to provide a right of confidentiality in respect of spent convictions. While the 1974 Act in some respects may place an individual with spent convictions in the same position as someone with no convictions, it does not do so by rendering the convictions confidential; it does so simply by putting in place a regime which protects an individual from being prejudiced by the existence of such convictions. For these reasons I reject the submission that the 1974 Act renders the appellant's convictions confidential."
Road Traffic Act 1988 44(1) 45(7) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 - Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 - Road Traffic Offenders Act 1974 45(7) - European Convention on Human Rights 8
[ Bailii ]
Decra Plastics Ltd v Waltham Forest [2002] EWHC 2718 (Admin)
13 Dec 2002
Admn
Road Traffic
[ Bailii ]
