The claimant fireman sought with his union to challenge a policy document issued by his employers which gave directions suggesting that fire engine drivers were to disobey traffic signals.
Held: The decision of the lower court was affirmed. It is not the law that every criminal act must lead to a prosecution.
Lord Denning MR said of disciplinary bodies that ‘they must act fairly just the same as anyone else; and are just as subject to control by the courts’
As to a defence of necessity, Lord Denning MR said: ‘During the argument I raised the question: Might not the driver of a fire engine be able to raise the defence of necessity? I put this illustration. ‘A driver of a fire engine with ladders approaches the traffic lights. He sees 200 yards down the road a blazing house with a man at an upstairs window in extreme peril. The road is clear in all directions. At that moment the lights turn red. Is the driver to wait for 60 seconds, or more, for the lights to turn green? If the driver waits for that time, the man’s life will be lost. I suggested to both counsel that the driver might be excused in crossing the lights to save the man. He might have the defence of necessity. Both counsel denied it.
They would not allow him any defence in law. The circumstances went to mitigation they said, and did not take away his guilt. If counsel are correct – and I accept that they are – nevertheless such a man should not be prosecuted. He should be congratulated.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR
Citations:
[1971] 2 All ER 254, [1971] Ch 655
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Buckoke v Greater London Council ChD 1970
The plaintiff sought to challenge instructions from his employer as to his freedom to ignore traffic signals when driving a fire engine on an emergency run. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic, Employment
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.188799
