Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1320 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Road Traffic

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.463000

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Non-recognition in national law of the right to a judicial remedy in respect of decisions imposing a financial penalty and the deduction of points for certain breaches of road traffic regulations – Purely internal situation – Inadmissibility of the reference

Judges:

Prechal P

Citations:

C-27/11, [2012] EUECJ C-27/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Road Traffic

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460222

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1632

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.246761

After routine procedures were followed at the police station, the police took a specimen of breath over two hours after those used for analysis to see if the defendant was then fit to leave. It showed a reading consistent with the analysis of the earlier sample. Several weeks after the arrest the machine had been tested and shown to be unreliable. Held The sample was properly allowed in as evidence of consistency.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Newman J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 564 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Zafar v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-Nov-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction for failing a breath test. He said that since the meter could be affected by mouth alcohol, the prosecutor had a duty to show that the reading arose from a breath taken deep from the lung by a deep breath.

Cited by:

Cited – Woolfe v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jun-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He claimed to have a medical condition under which the contents of his stomach would regurgitate into his mouth, and that this could exaggerate the alcohol reading.
Held: . .
Cited – Smith v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide the roadside breath test figures.
Held: The appeal failed, and was indeed hopeless. Pill LJ said: ‘The specimens of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.224841

Appeal against conviction for driving with excess alcohol – officer reading out contents of the print-out when it had not been served on the defendant.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1575 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.242954

The defendant faced with an allegation of failng to provide a specimen of breath, argued that the consumption of alcohol since he had been driving could amount to a reasonable excuse.
Held: The court considered what would amount to a reasonable excuse for a driver failing to provide a specimen of breath: ‘A state of affairs which does not affect ability to take a breath test or supply a specimen does not seem, on the authorities, to amount to a reasonable excuse.’ and ‘In our judgment no excuse can be adjudged a reasonable one unless the person from whom the specimen is required is physically or mentally unable to provide it or the provision of the specimen would entail a substantial risk to his health.’

Judges:

Lawton LJ

Citations:

[1973] RTR 252

Statutes:

Road Safety Act 1967

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Brodzky 1997
The court was asked as to what would amount to a reasonable excuse for a driver failing to provide a specimen of breath when so requested: ‘The first point to make is that, although the first question has been put in the form of whether the justices . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Grundy Admn 3-May-2006
The prosecution appealed by way of case stated from the acquittal of the defendant for failing to provide a specimen of breath. She had been distressed on being arrested, and the magistrates concluded that her distress had been the cause of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.242533

The court set out the requirements to be met by a defendant on an argument that there existed special reasons for him not to be disqualified: (1) a special reason must be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance; (2) it must not amount in law to a defence; (3) it must be directly connected with the commission of the offence; and (4) it must be a matter which the court ought properly to take into account when considering sentence.

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

(1958) 42 Cr App R 236

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Woolfe v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jun-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He claimed to have a medical condition under which the contents of his stomach would regurgitate into his mouth, and that this could exaggerate the alcohol reading.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.242900

The defendant appealed a sentence of four years for causing death by dangerous driving. He had overtaken in a lorry, crossing double white lines, and crashing into a car coming the other way. He was of previous good character and genuinely remorseful. The sentence appeared to exceed the tariff.
Held: The sentence was for an offence which was a calculated risk, described by other witnesses, as suicidal and sheer madness. The sentence stood.

Judges:

Lord Justice Roch, Mr Justice Rougier, Mr Justice Wright

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Crim 2169

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Bevan CACD 1996
. .
Cited – Regina v Lowry CACD 1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.158569

Appeal against conviction for driving with excess alcohol – defence claim that prosecution became abuse of process for delay and absence of CCTV evidence lost by police.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1570 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.242953

The defendant appealed by case stated his conviction of driving with excess alcohol. He said that the device used was not an approved one. He also said that the reading was invaid in including a reading of mouth alcohol.

Judges:

Waller L, Swift J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 462 (Admin), [2010] RTR 25

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Zafar v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-Nov-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction for failing a breath test. He said that since the meter could be affected by mouth alcohol, the prosecutor had a duty to show that the reading arose from a breath taken deep from the lung by a deep breath.
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Andrew Earle Anthony Brown, Jose Teixeira QBD 16-Nov-2001
Where a defendant to a charge of driving with excess alcohol, sought to test the accuracy of the Intoximeter, the Magistrates should consider whether the evidence was as to the particular Intoximeter used, and was of sufficient quality to displace . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Memery QBD 4-Jul-2002
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.402594

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.’

Judges:

Forbes J, Keene LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 385 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dhaliwal, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Mar-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that the court had failed to allow him to raise properly expert doubts as to the prosecution evidence. He sought to challenge the effect of preservatives on the sample of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.242944

The MIB appealed from a judgment making it liable for an award of damages to the estate of the deceased who had been a passenger in a vehicle which he knew to be being driven without insurance. The estate had not sued the MIB directly, but first obtained a judgement against the driver and then taken the matter forward against the MIB.
Held: The judge’s interpretation of the Agreement was correct. The appeal was dismissed

Judges:

Ward LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 74, Times 21-Feb-2007, [2007] 1 WLR 1351, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR 413, [2007] 3 All ER 382

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Second Council Directive (84/5/EEC), Fatal Accidents Act 1976 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .
Cited – White v White and The Motor Insurers Bureau HL 1-Mar-2001
The requirements as to the extent of knowledge in the mind of a passenger sufficient to defeat a claim against the Motor Insurers Bureau, of the driver’s lack of insurance, was actual knowledge. The rules implemented a European Directive which . .
Appeal from – Phillips v Rafiq and Moror Insurer’s Bureau QBD 11-May-2006
The deceased had been a passenger in a car. He had known the driver was not insured. The estate claimed first damages from the first defendant driver, and only then to enforce the judgment against the second defendant.
Held: The MIB was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.248807

The motorist was driving at an excessive and dangerous speed. He was seen by detectives from a police motor car. They followed him but thought that he was driving far too fast and dangerously for them to overtake him. They followed him to a holiday camp, and when he stopped there they kept him in the driving seat until a uniformed police officer, who could administer a breath test-arrived.
When the uniformed officer arrived the man had been in the driving seat for fifteen minutes. On being invited by that officer to undergo a breath test he obliged, and it was found that he was excessively over the limit.
Held: He was no longer driving or attempting to drive, and the procedure came to a nullity.
When asked whether a driver has ceased driving on a driver stopping, the reason for stopping can be relevant. It may be the end of the journey (ie. parking in a car park) or an part and parcel of the journey such as stopping at a traffic light or pedestrian crossing).
Griffith J said:
‘Whether the motorist is driving at the relevant time is a question of fact to be determined by the justices, directing themselves to the same considerations as a judge would direct a jury in his summing up. Pinner v Everett . . . and other decisions provide guidance as to the considerations that are relevant in determining this question. The court has considered all these decisions and it is not necessary to lengthen this judgment by an elaborate citation of authority. While it is not possible to reconcile all the decisions one with another, the court is satisfied that their collective effect may be summarised as follows:
1. The vehicle does not have to be in motion; there will always be a brief interval of time after the vehicle has been brought to rest and before the motorist has completed those operations necessarily connected with driving, such as applying the handbrake, switching off the ignition and securing this vehicle, during which he must still be considered to be driving.
2. When a motorist stops before he has completed his journey he may still be driving; an obvious example is when he is halted at traffic lights. Each case will depend its own facts, but generally the following questions will be relevant: (a) What was the purpose of the stop? If it is connected with the driving, and not for some purpose unconnected with the driving, the facts may justify a finding that the driving is continuing although the vehicle is stationary. (b) How long was he stopped? The longer he is stopped the more difficult it becomes to regard him as still driving. (c) Did he get out of the vehicle? If he remains in the vehicle it is some though not a conclusive indication that he is still driving.
3. If a motorist is stopped by a constable in uniform who immediately forms the suspicion that the motorist has alcohol in his body, the motorist should be regarded as still driving at the moment when the suspicion is formed; but if an appreciable time elapses before the constable’s suspicion is aroused it will be a question of fact and degree whether the motorist is still to be considered as driving at that time.
4. When a motorist has arrived at the end of his journey, then subject to the brief interval referred to in 1 above he can no longer be regarded as driving.
5. When a motorist has been effectively prevented or persuaded from driving he can no longer be considered to be driving.’

Judges:

Griffiths J

Citations:

(1973) 57 Cr App R 751, [1973] 2 All ER 545, [1973] 1 QB 748, [1995] RTR 177

Statutes:

Road Safety Act 1967 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pinner v Everett HL 1969
The House was asked whether or not a person was ‘driving or attempting to drive’ a motor vehicle when he had been stopped by the police in connection with the illumination of his rear number plate, and the driver got out of the car and started to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.646829

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 3165 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.226906

The defendant renewed his application for leave to appeal against his sentence of twelve months imprisonment after conviction for causing death by dangerous driving. He had been driving a slow moving agricultural vehicle along a road. It was evening, and the vehicle was being driven without lights. The other driver had come upon the farm vehicle and been obliged to overtake to avoid a collision. The overtaking vehicle ran head first into an oncoming vehicle, and the driver died. Some of the lights on the appellant’s vehicles were obscured by mud, and other parts of the trailer or had been removed.
Held: ‘The gravamen of this case, and indeed this type of case, lies in causing that vehicle to go out on to the road at that time of day in the condition in which it was, that is to say dusk or dark, as the witnesses say, with no visible lights. Instead of walking the short, five to ten minutes (if that), distance home to collect another vehicle, the applicant decided to take a chance and thereby take a risk of the safety of anyone who happened to be driving along the road behind him or, indeed, to a certain extent, in front of him. That was a dangerous thing to do, and it should have become obvious; indeed on the basis of what he said to the police it was obvious, both to the applicant and to any careful and competent person. An immediate custodial sentence was required’ The sentence was in no way excessive or wrong. Leave refused.

Judges:

Brian Walsh QC, Waller LJ, Hooper LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Crim 775

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.153649

The defendant had been convicted of other offences at the crown court. Traffic offences were also committed for sentence. The judge imposed a disqualification and penalty points. The section clearly required either a disqualification, or imposition of points. He had erred in doing both, and the penalty points were removed.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Crim 1828

Statutes:

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 s44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.151283

The claimant a 78 year old lady had crashed. Her appeal from revocation of her drivers licence was refused and she appealed.
Held: The magistrates had not taken proper account of the drivers medical evidence. The decision was perverse and to be set aside.

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 271 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.543036

The DPP appealed a finding of special reasons for not disqualifying the defendant after finding him guilty of driving with excess alcohol. He had been stopped driving at excess speed, he had driven over a mile and had a further two hundred yards to drive, and had driven through the centre of Congleton. He pointed out it was at three in the morning, and that his girlfriend was unwell and unable to return home unassisted.
Held: The magistrates decision was so perverse as to be wrong in law. The distance was not short and had been erratic and at speed, and had been through a town with pedestrians. A taxi could have been found for the girlfriend.

Judges:

Rose LJ VP CACD

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1674 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Wickins 1958
The court prescribed four requirements for a special reason: namely, it must be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance; it must not in law amount to a defence; it must be directly connected with the commission of the offence; and the matter must . .
Mentioned – James v Hall 1972
. .
Mentioned – Coombs v Kehoe 1972
The defendant defended a charge of driving with excess alcohol, saying that he had only driven a short distance, and that there were special circumstances;
Held: The circumstances surrounding the respondent’s actions did not amount to a . .
Cited – Chatters v Burke QBD 1986
A car had rolled over and stopped in a field next to the highway and was then driven with a flat tyre a few yards from the field through a gate, onto the road and parked there.
Held: In determining whether special reasons existed to justify . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.185606

The defendant, a Grade 1 advanced police driver, had driven very fast in pursuit of a stolen car. He crossed a junction at high speed and collided with another vehicle causing two deaths. He gave evidence that he believed that the police were controlling traffic at that junction and that it was safe for him to cross it at speed.
Held: His belief about the safety of what he was doing was irrelevant to the issue of guilt because the test under section 2A was an objective one.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Crim 657, [1997] RTR 439

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 2A(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Milton v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 16-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, saying that his special skills as a trained police driver should have been allowed for. He had driven on a motorway at average speeds of 148mph.
Held: His appeal was allowed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.150112

The defendant appealed a sentence of 9 months’ detention in a young offender institution for driving whilst disqualified.
Held: The driving had caused some danger, and he had never held a licence. The sentence stood.

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Crim 1573

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.149237

Prison sentence was appropriate for a Defendant causing death by dangerous driving whilst 3.5 times alcohol limit.

Citations:

Times 23-Jan-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.88023

The owners of the tolled bridge over the Teign, sought to charge bicycle riders tolls.
Held: A bicycle was not chargeable as a carriage on the bridge toll under the Act establishing it. The court doubted that a bicycle was a ‘carriage hung on springs’.

Judges:

The Earl of Halsbury LC, Lord Alverstone CJ and Sir Francis Jeune P

Citations:

[1903] 1 KB 405, [1903] 72 LJKB 204, [1903] 88 LT 117, [1903] 67 JP 65, [1903] 51 WR 545, [1903] 19 TLR 225, [1903] 47 Sol Jo 278, [1903] 1 LGR 235

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Coates v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 29-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for driving a Segway scooter on a footpath. He denied that it was ‘a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads.’
Held: The appeal failed. The district judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.442523

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1325

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.218348

Judges:

Rose LJ VP CACD

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1729 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.185608

Appeal by case stated from dismissal of charge of driving taxi outside licensed area.

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 807 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452376

Prosecutor’s appeal against dismissal of charge of driving with excess alcohol.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Turner J

Citations:

[2000] RTR 341, [1999] EWHC 836 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.431596

The claimant’s van was parked in a bay for loading and unloading purposes only. A parking attendant saw nobody attending for a few minutes, issued a ticket and called for the vehicle to be towed away. The claimant returned, and explained that he was within the 20 minute limit allowed. Nevertheless the vehicle was towed away. On his appeal, the defendant refunded the fine and towaway charges. The claimant now appealed against refusal of his claim for damages to the perishable goods in the van.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The removal procedures did not follow the same logic as those for issuing a ticket. The right to tow away depended upon there having been a contravention, and not only on the warden’s reasonable belief that there had been one.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Carnwath, Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1189

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Road Traffic Act 1991, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 5A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448091

Two claims for judicial review in respect of convictions for exceeding the speed limit. Absence of Traffic Order imposing speed limit.
Held: Quashed.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1289 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.198220

The regulations required drivers to keep tachograph records only for one week, and permitted them to retain them longer. It was not possible therefore to conclude that the employer had failed to institute an adequate system of supervision to ensure that drivers were not speeding by checking records only every three weeks.

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Road Traffic (Drivers’ Hours and Hours of Work) Act 1976 2 (1)(c), Criminal Justice Act 1981 38 46, Community Drivers’ Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986 no 1457

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.90671

Citations:

(1990) RTR 320

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stevenson and Another v Rogers CA 8-Dec-1998
The defendant, who carried on the business of a fisherman, sold his vessel Jelle to the plaintiff with a view to having a new boat built to his requirements. In the event he bought a replacement vessel which he continued to use for his business. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.187345

A motorcyclist appealed against his conviction for having overtaken a line of vehicles driving down the outside of dashed white lines, only returning to the nearside when the lines became solid. He said that there was no white arrow painted to indicate the requirement to return to the nearside.
Held: The signage did not meet the staututory description and was ineffective to create the restriction. It was not lawfully placed on the road. The appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[1990] RTR 621, (1990) 154 JP 837, [1989] 87 LGR 748

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1972 22, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 65, Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981 No 859 of 1981 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.251552

Appeal against conviction for driving with excess alcohol – officer having mobile phone with him and turned on contrary to manufacturer’s instructions.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘This appeal should, in my view, mark the end of arguments before Magistrates’ Courts and Crown Courts that, merely because a mobile telephone or police radio was — still less, may have been — present and switched on, so the result of the analysis of the samples of breath produced by the intoximeter EC/IR device should not be admitted and/or should be found unreliable. Evidence is required at least to raise the realistic possibility that the device on the occasion with which the court is concerned may have malfunctioned and produced a false reading. Assertions based merely on an alleged failure to comply with manufacturer’s recommendations do not amount to such evidence. ‘

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1516 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cracknell v Willis HL 1988
The evidence which is admissible on a challenge to the reliability of an intoximeter device is not limited to direct evidence of the unreliability of the breath testing device, but can be based on evidence such as the level of consumption, and the . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Carey HL 1970
If a police officer has reason to believe that a driver suspected of driving with excess alcohol has consumed alcohol within the previous 20 minutes, he must wait until 20 minutes has elapsed after the last drink before administering the breath . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.242955