Category: Road Traffic

Hussain v the Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 19 Mar 2008

Appeal by case stated – conviction for failing to provide specimen of breath. Machine at one station had failed on two occasions – defendant taken to second station and re-tested. Whether third test request lawful.
Held: In completing the first two tests the defendant had not satisfied the statutory requirements, and ‘where no valid specimens of breath have been provided, the officer was entitled to require the appellant to provide two further specimens of breath. His refusal to do so constituted the offence of which he was convicted. ‘

Judges:

Leveson LJ, LLoyd Jones J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 901 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Howard v Hallett QBD 1984
The police adduced in evidence against the defendant the analysis of a specimen of breath which was not the specimen required under the Act.
Held: The evidence of the analysis of the specimen relied on by the police was inadmissible in . .
Cited – John Kimball Stewart v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 2-Jun-2003
The defendant gave two specimens of breath, but they differed so markedly that the officer considered them unreliable. He offered the defendant the choice of a further two attempts or to give a specimen of blood or urine. He was convicted on the . .
Cited – Jubb v Director of Public Prosecutions 2002
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 . .
Cited – Gordon v Thorpe QBD 1986
The defendant provided two specimens of breath through an intoximeter 3000. Though the machine appeared to be working otherwise properly, the two readings were wider apart than usual.
Held: Each reading was still in excess of the maximum, and . .
Cited – Denny v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1990
The appellant had been stopped, taken to a police station and required to provide two specimens of breath for analysis. After he provided the second, the device indicated that it was not functioning normally, so the officer could not say that he had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.267716

Djanogly v Westminster City Council: CA 19 Apr 2011

The appellant challenged the defendant’s order imposing parking charges for motor-cycles. He challenged the assertion that the charges were properly part of a traffic management scheme, and secondly he attacked the findings of the respondent’s cost benefit analysis.
Held: Permission to appeal was refused. The respondent had properly sought to balance the costs of traffic management between the various road users. As to the financial analysis: ‘ the financial material in the relevant reports was no more and no less than forecasting, assembled in good faith. When errors occurred and were realised, they were rectified. If others remained, they were not of a nature or quality with the potential to vitiate the 2010 Order.’

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Smith, Moore-Bick LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 432

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Djanogly v City of Westminster Admn 16-Jul-2010
The claimant challenged the validity of parking orders made by the Council, in the imposition of charges for motor-cycles.
Held: The challenge was rejected. Pitchford LJ said: ‘ It seems to me almost self-evident that there will be a need to . .
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Local Government

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432837

Purnell, Regina (on The Application of) v Snaresbrook Crown Court: Admn 30 Mar 2011

The claimant sought judicial review of a dismissal of his appeal against conviction for failing to provide information as to the identity of a driver. The appeal court had found that he had not received the notices requiring him to provide the information, and he said that the court had refused to listen to evidence he sought to provide. The court said that there was a duty on him to make arrangements to receive notices relating to the car.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The duty asserted by the court did not exist as such: ‘section 172 provides that the requirement on the keeper of a vehicle to provide the relevant information arises once a Notice has been sent to his last known address, which (as here) will almost inevitably be the address at which he is the registered keeper. Once a Notice has been so sent, a keeper is guilty of an offence if he fails to provide the requisite information within 28 days unless, on a balance of probabilities, he can establish a statutory defence under subsection (7) (for example, under subsection (7)(b) that it was not reasonably practicable to give the information because the notice was never delivered to the registered address), or under subsection (4) (for example, that despite receiving the Notice he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was at the material time).
It follows, in my view, that section 172 does not create a duty, as such, on a registered keeper to make sure that he is available at the registered address to receive communications such as Notices of Intended Prosecution. Rather, a failure to be so available is simply a factor which may make it very difficult, if not impossible, for a registered keeper to discharge the burden on him of proving a defence under subsection (7)(b), particularly if that defence is the example that I have just given, namely that it was not reasonably practicable to comply with the Notice because it was never delivered to the registered address.’

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 934 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 172(3), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Whiteside v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Dec-2011
The defendant appealed by case stated against conviction under section 172 of failing to provide appropriate driver details. The notices had been received at his address, but he had been unaware of them. He was at the time working regularly in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432842

Director of Public Prosecutions v Barker: Admn 19 Oct 2004

Driving whilst disqualified – ban expired but no test taken – burden of evidence

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2502 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Regina v Edwards, Denton and Jackson Hendley Crowley; Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2004) CACD 29-Apr-2004
The court considered references by the Attorney-General with regard to offences imposing a burden of proof upon the defendant. ‘An evidential burden will be discharged by a defendant by ensuring that there is some evidence before the court which . .
Cited – Scott v Jelf 1974
The defendant was accused of driving whilst disqualified. He drove in breach of the conditions of a provisional licence having been disqualified until he took the test.
Held: Lord Widgery CJ: ‘That provision has appeared in the road traffic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.219261

Interlink Express Parcels Ltd v Night Trunkers Ltd and Another: ChD 23 Mar 2000

The claimant contracted to deliver parcels overnight. By a contract the defendant supplied drivers to carry out some of the work. The claimant sought a declaration that the contract was void. By virtue of the arrangement the defendant came to be operating the vehicles, and so needed a licence for carrying goods by road for hire or reward. The defendant had no such licence. It was held that the agreement was void. The first defendant remained the employer. He decided the routes, paid holiday pay and arranged stand ins.

Citations:

Gazette 23-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Road Traffic

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.82397

Idrees v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 15 Feb 2011

The defendant appealed against a rejection of his submission of no case to answer on a charge under the 2006 Act where somebody had taken a driving test in his name.
Held: The evidence was ample to justify the magistrates’ conclusion. It was so clear that a case might have been refused.

Judges:

Moses LJ

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 624 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Fraud Act 2006

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431264

Atkinson v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 10 Mar 2011

Appeal by way of case stated from conviction for an offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath without reasonable excuse, contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 706 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431269

Frost v Oldfield: QBD 18 Feb 2010

The parties had crashed riding their motorcycles over a single carriageway twisting moortop road. Each said that the other had crossed into the oncoming lane. The police expert witness had been unable to establish the exact location of the accident.
Held: One cycle had been seen to be travelling at moderate speed, and was on a straight stretch with no reason to have gone over the central line. The other had been seen to be riding more quickly and had just negotiated a left hand bend shortly after which the accident occurred. The defendant’s expert witness’ version of events was inconsistent with the facts and was discounted. The claimant succeeded.

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 279 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence, Road Traffic

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.401650

Regina v Noble: CACD 24 Jun 2002

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.

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Davis and Judge John Griffith Williams, QC

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2002, Gazette 21-Aug-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Boswell CACD 1984
The court gave guidelines for sentencing for the offence of causing death by reckless driving. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.174312

Attorney General’s Reference No 26 of 1999 Under Section 36 of Criminal Justice Act 1988; Regina v Gastinger: CACD 29 Jul 1999

The AG sought to refer to the court as unduly lenient a sentence of 100 hours community service for causing death by dangerous driving. The had been seen driving erratically along the M6, when he veered onto the hard shoulder colliding with an unlit vehicle, killing the driver.
Held: Falling asleep at the wheel usually involves a period during which a driver is conscious of drowsiness and difficulty in keeping his or her eyes open. The proper course for a driver in such a position to adopt is to stop driving and rest.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Crim 2116, [2001] CAR (S) 394

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.158516

Askey v Wood: CA 21 Apr 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 574

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust etc CA 11-May-2004
The court considered the effect on costs orders of a refusal to take part in alternate dispute resolution procedures. The defendant Trust had refused to take the dispute to a mediation. In neither case had the court ordered or recommended ADR.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Costs

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.225050

Jukes and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 16 Jan 2013

Two of those participating in a march demonstrating against cuts in the education budget, left that march to join the Occupy Movement’s demonstration in Trafalgar Square against the excesses of capitalism. They were, convicted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court of breaching conditions imposed under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 in respect of the route the march should take. They said that they had left the march and were on a new route of their own.
Held: The District Judge was right to find that they had not left the March, and: ‘Those participating in the public procession were entitled to leave it, but they were not entitled to move from the route of the procession whilst they remained as participants in it. I’
The Court said: ‘It is important to note that the conditions imposed pursuant to the power confirmed under section 12(1) are conditions which relate, as the section indicates, to a particular public procession. ‘Public procession’ is defined in section 16 of the Act to mean a procession in a public place. That it relates to a particular public procession is made clear by the identification within section 12(1) of the grounds upon which conditions may be imposed. The circumstances and the route on the basis of which a police officer’s belief of risk must reasonably be founded route relate to a particular public procession.’

Judges:

Moses LJ and Gloster J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 195 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Powlesland v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 9-Dec-2013
The defendant apealed against his conviction for having taken part in a public procession, a a Critical Mass Cycle Ride, knowingly in breach of conditions attached to it by the Police. The defendant had argued that the ride was not a procession.
Cited – Jones and Others v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 6-Nov-2019
Distributed Demonstration not within 1986 Act
The claimants, seeking to demonstrate support for the extinction rebellion movement by demonstrating in London, now challenged an order made under the 1986 Act restricting their right to demonstrate.
Held: The XRAU was not a public assembly at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.471020

Carvalho Ferreira Santos: ECJ 7 Dec 2010

ECJ (Approximation Of Laws) Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC – Automobile Liability Insurance – Determining liability regime for claims arising from motor vehicle traffic – Limiting the right to compensation from the insurance required based on the contribution to the damage of one of the drivers responsible for the accident – Unable to determine the causal contribution to the occurrence of the two conductors-Responsibility for risk.

Citations:

C-484/09, [2010] EUECJ C-484/09, [2011] EUECJ C-484/09

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Road Traffic

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427314

Odedara, Regina v: CACD 21 Dec 2009

The defendant appealed against a sentence of immediate imprisonment after pleading guilty to the offence of causing death by careless driving.

Judges:

Hughes VP LJ, Rafferty, Edwards-Stuart JJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 2828, [2010] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 51

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426504

Bingham, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 7 Feb 2003

The defendant appealed by case stated against a conviction for driving a lorry without due care and attention, leading to the death of another road user. There had been an unexplained swing of the rear of his trailer out into the path of the other vehicle.
Held: It was plainly open to the magistrates to make this finding of fact in the terms in which they made it and it could not be impugned.

Judges:

MacKay J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 247 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Wright v Wenlock 1971
The court set out the circumstances in which, in the absense of an explanation, the only proper inference is careless driving.
Lord Parker CJ said ‘the facts of a particular case may be such that, in the absence of some explanation the only . .
Cited – Butty v Davey 1972
Where a defendant provided an explanation of an accident which was not fanciful, he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. . .
Cited – Ng Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat PC 24-May-1988
There had been a crossover collision on a dual carriageway.
Held: The court considered the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Held: Where a defendant adduces evidence, that evidence must be evaluated to see if it is still reasonable to draw . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.184954

Williams, Regina v: CACD 2 Nov 2010

The offence of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured, is committed if the driver is unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured and if the driving is a cause of death in the sense that it was ‘more than negligible or de minimis’. It was not an element of the offence that the defendant’s driving had to exhibit any fault contributing to the accident. It had held, moreover, that it was enough that the defendant was uninsured, or without full licence, and that his car had been involved in the fatal collision.

Judges:

Thomas LJ, Silber LJ, Wadsworth QC

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 2552, [2011] 1 WLR 588, (2010) 174 JP 606

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Safety Act 2006 3ZB, Road Traffic Act 1988 3ZB

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Foster v Bon Groundwork Ltd EAT 17-Mar-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
In April 2009, the Claimant, who was then 77 years of age, was employed by the Respondent, when he was laid off without pay. While still being employed by . .
Cited – Hughes, Regina v SC 31-Jul-2013
Uninsured Driver Not Guilty of Causing Death
The appellant though an uninsured driver, was driving without fault when another vehicle veered across the road. The other driver died from his injuries, and the appellant convicted of causing his death whilst uninsured. At trial he succeeded in . .
Cited – Taylor, Regina v SC 3-Feb-2016
No Liability Extension on Taking Without Consent
Appeal by leave of the Court of Appeal on a point of law arising in the course of the trial of the appellant for aggravated vehicle taking, contrary to section 12A of the Theft Act 1968. The defendant had taken a vehicle without the owner’s consent, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425642

Foster, Regina v: CACD 20 May 2009

The applicant challenged a sentence of 18 months imprisonment imposed for causing death by dangerous driving. The accident occurred as he drove his wife home from hospital, they just having learned of her imminent death. He was of previous impeccable character.
Held: ‘this was a case in which the appellant clearly was distracted from attention to his driving for a very short period indeed and, importantly, when his emotions as a result of the hospital visit must have made him susceptible to distraction. Given that, and given the other mitigating features of this case, we consider that it would be appropriate, without disrespecting the jury’s verdict, to take the starting point for sentence to be the 15 months’ custody for the most serious level of careless driving suggested by the note to which we have referred; and moreover we consider it is right to reduce that to 12 months because of the appellant’s good character and other matters of personal mitigation. ‘ The sentence was suspended.

Judges:

Hallet DBE LJ, Andrew Smith, Slade DBE JJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 1184, [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 36

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425506

Beckett, Regina (on The Application of) v Aylesbury Crown Court: Admn 22 Jan 2004

The applicant had unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He had been stopped randomly to check his documents and the road worthiness of the older car.
Held: The appeal failed. May LJ said: ‘Whether it be under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or under a duty at common law, a police officer has the power, provided he or she does not act capriciously or in bad faith, or provided there is no malpractice or oppression or opprobrious behaviour, to stop a motorist on the road. If thereafter there is a reasonable suspicion of drinking, a breath test may be administered.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 100 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Beard v Wood 1980
The court discussed the power of a constable to stop a driver.
Held: Provided the officer was acting in good faith the statutory powers given to him he need have no grounds for stopping a driver. Nothing in the section required the prosecutor . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Gwent v Dash 1986
In the absence of malpractice, oppression, caprice or opprobrious behaviour, there is no restriction on the stopping of motorists by a police officer in the execution of his duty and subsequent requirement of a breath test if the officer then and . .
Cited – Steel v Goacher QBD 1985
Griffiths LJ discussed the lawfulness of a police officer’s stopping of a motorist, and said: ‘It should, however, be stated that the police officer was acting within the execution of his duty by virtue of his power at common law and not by virtue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Police

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425318

Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs: ECJ 30 Sep 2010

ECJ Free provision of transport services – Right of establishment – Competition – for tourism exploitation of a line of urban public transport serving fixed stops – Existence of an institution as a condition precedent to the granting of Concession – Protection of the profitability of existing dealer.

Citations:

C-338/09, [2010] EUECJ C-338/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Road Traffic

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425274

Singh (T/A Sandwell Travel), Re: UTAA 12 May 2010

Appeal from the Decision of the Traffic Commissioner declining to reverse the automatic termination of the operator’s licence pursuant to s.52(2D) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, for non-payment of the continuation fee by the deadline date.
Held: Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 173 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Road Traffic

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425146

Ministere public v Lahousse And Lavichy: ECJ 16 Sep 2010

ECJ (Approximation Of Laws) Type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles – Exclusion of vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions – National legislation prohibiting the marketing and use of equipment designed to increase the power or speed of mopeds.

Judges:

Jaaskinen AG

Citations:

C-142/09, [2010] EUECJ C-142/09

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Opinion – Ministere public v Lahousse And Lavichy ECJ 18-Nov-2010
ECJ Directives 92/61/EEC and 2002/24/EC – Type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles – Vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions – National legislation prohibiting the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Road Traffic

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424185

Wood v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Jun 2010

The defendant appealed against his conviction for speeding (103mph in 50mph zone). He complained that the section 9 statement remained unsigned.
Held: The appeal failed. There had been no breach of section 9. Nobody could have misunderstood the intent and meaning of the statement.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1769 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 562

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 84 89(1), Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, Criminal Justice Act 1967 9(1) 9(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.421048

Herron and Another v The Parking Adjudicator: Admn 25 May 2010

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions of the parking adjudicator as to the commission of parking offences. He said that failures in ceratiin parts of a controlled parking zone in Sunderland invalidated parking controls in the entire zone.
Held: The review was refused.
Bean J said: ‘In my judgment regulation 4 on its proper construction means that every part of every road in a CPZ, other than a parking bay, must be marked with a single or double yellow line (with or without the ‘loading and unloading’ equivalents), except where an alternative parking prohibition is marked out such as that imposed by the zig-zags on the approach to a pedestrian crossing. Furthermore, I consider that any non-compliance, whether accidental or (if I am wrong on the previous point) arising from the presence of an alternative parking prohibition, is immaterial if it is too far from the location of the particular motorist’s contravention to have led him or her into error.’

Judges:

Bean J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1161 (Admin), [2011] RTR 10, [2010] ACD 82

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Herron and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parking Adjudicator CA 27-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against refusal of judicial review of decisions of the parking adjudicator as to the correctness of 39 penalty charge notices. In each case, they said that the signage supporting the notice, in particular single and double . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.416120

Churchill Insurance Company Ltd v Wilkinson and Others: CA 19 May 2010

The various insured defendants had been driven in the insured vehicles by a non-insured driver. Suffering injury at the negligence of the driver, they recovered variously damages. Their insurance companies sought recovery of the sums paid from their respective insureds under the policy terms, section 151 and under European law. Appeals and cross appeals were heard from differing answers at first instance. The injured passengers argued that Article 13(1)(a) of the Directive is concerned to prevent insurers excluding from insurance vehicles being driven by persons unauthorised by the insurers.
Held: The Directive provided that members states could allow certain exclusions. The court referred to the ECJ the question of whether section 151(8) complied with the Directive.

Judges:

Neuberger MR L, Waller LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

[2010] Lloyds Rep IR 591, [2010] EWCA Civ 556

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 151(4), Council Directive 2009/103/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Cited – Philip Owen Lloyd-Wolper v Robert Moore; National Insurance Guarantee Corporation Plc, Charles Moore CA 22-Jun-2004
The first defendant drove a car belonging to his father and insured by his father. The father consented to the driving but under a mistaken belief that his son was licensed. The claimant was injured by the defendant in a road traffic accident.
Cited – Angelidaki and Others v Organismos Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Rethimnis ECJ 23-Apr-2009
ECJ (Social Policy) Directive 1999/70/EC Clauses 5 and 8 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work – Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector – First or single use of a contract – Successive . .
Cited – Francovich, Bonifaci and others v Italy ECJ 19-Nov-1991
LMA The claimants, a group of ex-employees sought arrears of wages on their employers’ insolvency. The European Directive required Member States to provide a guarantee fund to ensure payment of employees’ arrears . .
Cited – Criminal proceedings against Ruiz Bernaldez ECJ 28-Mar-1996
Europa In the preliminary-ruling procedure under Article 177 of the Treaty, it is for the national courts alone, before which the proceedings are pending and which must assume responsibility for the judgment to . .
Cited – Candolin Ea (Approximation Of Laws) ECJ 30-Jun-2005
Compulsory motor vehicle insurance – Directives 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC – Rules on civil liability – Passenger’s contribution to the loss or injury – Refusal or limitation of the right to compensation.
The drunken owner of a car allowed an . .
Cited – Mendes Ferreira and Delgado Correia Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confianca SA ECJ 14-Sep-2000
ECJ Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Directives 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC – Minimum amounts of cover – Type of civil liability – Injury caused to a member of the family of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police and Another ChD 9-Nov-2011
The claimant alleged infringement by the defendant of assorted intellectual property rights in its database. It provided systems for recovering materials deleted from Nokia mobile phones.
Held: ‘the present case is concerned with a collection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance, European

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415925

Director of Public Prosecutions v Butler: Admn 4 Mar 2010

The Local Authority appealed against the rejection of an allegation of speeding, on the basis that that the speed limit sign, which was designed to be illuminated, was not in fact lit.
Held: The appeal failed.

Judges:

Toulson LJ, Owen J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 669 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 27-Jan-2011
The driver appealed against his conviction for exceeding the relevant maximum speed on a Special Road, the A55 in North Wales. The speed limit signs were designed to be illuminated, but the lamps were not working. Instructions had been given not to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408627

Director of Public Prosecutions v Wood: QBD 19 Jan 2006

Issues relating to disclosure obligations and the stay of proceedings as an abuse of process. Both relate to the disclosure of material concerning Intoximeters used for testing alcohol on the breath.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2986 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 11(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Road Traffic

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.238320

West Sussex County Council v Russell: CA 12 Feb 2010

The council appealed against a finding that it had failed in its duty to keep the highway safe leading to an accident in which the claimant was severely injured. The road was narrow, and a significant drop had developed by the edge of the road. The claimant drove into the drop, then crashed after swerving to restore herself to the road.
Held: The authority’s appeal failed. The verge was part of the roadway, but was clearly marked off. ‘notwithstanding the terminology of the subsection and the occasional reference in the authorities to the ‘absolute’ nature of liability thereunder, the liability was less than to guarantee the safety of the highway for all users.’ This was a rural road, and the drop would not have been dangerous for drivers using it as intended. It was a hazard only to those speeding. Section 58(2)(a) might have provided an answer for the authority, but it had accepted the fault by remedying the road. The difference in height of six inches between the road surface and a grass verge was a potential hazard to users of the road and presented a danger, such that the defendant was in breach of its duty under Section 41 of the 1980 Act.

Judges:

Arden LJ, Wilson LJ, Henderson J

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 71, [2010] RTR 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 41(1) 58(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Burnside v Emerson CA 1968
A car crashed as a result of running into a pool of storm-water lying across the road. The pool had been caused by the authority’s failure properly to maintain the drainage system, which had become blocked.
Held: The claim succeeded. Diplock . .
Cited – Jones v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council CA 15-Jul-2008
The claimant, a fireman, sought damages for injuries suffered when he was injured answering a call out. He fell into a depressed area by the road side as he was pulling away a burning wooden pallet.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The court . .
Cited – Rider v Rider CA 1973
Sachs LJ stated that ‘it is in my judgment clear that the corporation’s statutory duty under section 44 of the Act of 1959 is reasonably to maintain and repair the highway so that it is free of danger to all users who use that highway in the way . .
Cited – Kind v Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Council Admn 31-Jul-2001
The appellant complained that the local council had failed to maintain a highway. The road was a single track rural highway. The Crown Court allowed for the present-day character of the highway, and the appellant objected. The complainant sought to . .

Cited by:

Cited – King Lifting Ltd v Oxfordshire County Council QBD 20-Jul-2016
A heavy crane had toppled from a road. The crane owners said that the highway authority were responsible for the poor condition of the road.
Held: The action failed. The evidence did not support the assertion that the accident arose from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Local Government, Road Traffic

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.396739

Martin v Harrow Crown Court: Admn 7 Dec 2007

The defendant appealed against the refusal of the Crown Court to state a case after his conviction for driving over the speed limit.
Held: There was enough before the court to allow it to hear the case as a request for judicial review of the court decision and it proceeded on that basis. The defendant had challenged the assertion by the police that the road was governed by a 30mph speed limit saying that it had not been established, in the absence of signage, that there were street lamps less than 200 yards apart. Defence counsel had refused to say what the limit was, answering that it was for the prosecution to establish the limit. The prosecution had failed to establish what speed restriction if any applied, and the appeal was allowed.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3193 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.271205

Gabriel Mckeon v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 19 Dec 2007

The defendant appealed his conviction for failing to give a specimen of breath saying that he had had no more breath to give. The machine had required the mouthpiece to be retained for inspection, but the officer had disposed of it. In formulating their case, the justices stated that the defendant had failed to prove a reasonable excuse for his failure.
Held: The magistrates could not place that burden on the defendant. The appeal was allowed.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3216 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.271207

Alun Griffiths (Contractors) Ltd v Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency: Admn 20 Oct 2009

The court was asked whether the Justices were entitled in law to find on the facts that land immediately behind a safety barrier was a public road for the purposes of the 1994 Act. On the footing that it was, the Justices convicted the appellant of keeping an unlicensed mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road, contrary to section 29(1) and 29(3) of that Act.
Held: They were.

Judges:

Goldring LJ, Rafferty J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3132 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Vehicle Excise Registration Act 1994 29(1) 29(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.384123

McCombie, Regina (on The Application of) v Liverpool City Magistrates’ Court: Admn 2 Nov 2009

Application for judicial review of a decision of the District Judge to refuse to state a case in relation to a criminal trial that he had conducted whereby he found the present claimant guilty of road traffic offences, driving without due care and attention, failing to stop and failing to report an accident.

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2881 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Road Traffic

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.381475

Director of Public Prosecutions v Garnett: Admn 30 Oct 1997

Appeal against acquittal of offence of driving a motor vehicle whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. The defendant had challenged the calibration of the Camic breath testing machine which showed the incorrect date.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 946

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 69

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.137891

Wade v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 14 Feb 1995

The Police Constable had failed to enquire further on the issue of ‘taking tablets’ as a medical reason for refusing to give a breath test. The prosecution failed.

Citations:

Times 14-Feb-1995, (1996) RTR 177

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Steadman v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 15-Apr-2002
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.90221

Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside: Admn 29 Oct 2009

The driver appealed against his conviction for speeding, saying that he had not been given the requisite notice within the 14 days required: ‘The notice of intended prosecution had been sent to him by first class ordinary post in circumstances where he would ordinarily have been expected to receive it in 14 days, but in fact it was delivered 16 days after the commission of the offence, apparently as a result of delivery delays following a postal strike. The prosecution conceded that the delivery was late.’
Held: The appeal succeeded. The letter had not been sent by recorded post or registered delivery, and so the deemed service provision did not apply. The notice of intended prosecution was not sent in time and could not be regarded as having been properly served.

Judges:

Elias LJ, Openshaw J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2924 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 1(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v County of London Quarter Session Appeals Committee ex parte Rossi CA 1956
A bastardy summons had been served on the defendant but he had not been properly served with a written notice indicating the date of an adjourned hearing. He sought an order for certiorari to quash the decision of the court.
Held: Where there . .
Cited – Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside Admn 29-Oct-2009
The driver appealed against his conviction for speeding, saying that he had not been given the requisite notice within the 14 days required: ‘The notice of intended prosecution had been sent to him by first class ordinary post in circumstances where . .
Cited – Groome v Driscoll QBD 1969
The defendant, prosecuted for a minor driving offence of driving without due care and attention, did not receive the information of intended prosecution within 14 days as the statute required. He appeal by case stated.
Held: Schedule 4 to the . .
Cited – Nicholson v Tapp 1972
A traffic summons had to be served within 14 days and it was sent by registered post on the fourteenth day, so that in the normal course of post it would not have arrived until after the 14 days had elapsed. The prosecution sought to rely upon the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside Admn 29-Oct-2009
The driver appealed against his conviction for speeding, saying that he had not been given the requisite notice within the 14 days required: ‘The notice of intended prosecution had been sent to him by first class ordinary post in circumstances where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380330

Maher and Another v Groupama Grand Est: CA 12 Nov 2009

Two English claimants respectively suffered injury in a French road accident. They brought claims for damages against the French insurer of the other driver. Judgment on liability was entered by consent. There were issues as to the assessment of damages and the award of interest.
Held: ‘The existence of a right to recover interest as a head of damage is a matter of French law, being the law applicable to the tort, but whether such a substantive right exists or not, the court has available to it the remedy created by section 35A of the 1981 Act. Having said that, the factors to be taken into account in the exercise of the court’s discretion may well include any relevant provisions of French law relating to the recovery of interest. To that extent I agree with the judge that both English and French law are relevant to the award of interest.’

Judges:

Mummery, Moore-Bick, Etherton LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1191, [2010] 1 WLR 1564, [2010] RTR 10, [2009] 2 CLC 852, [2010] 2 All ER 455, [2009] All ER (D) 143

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2000/26/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – FBTO Schadeverzekeringen v Jack Odenbreit ECJ 13-Dec-2007
ECJ Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance – Liability insurance – Action brought by the injured party directly against the insurer – Rule of jurisdiction of the courts for the . .
Cited – Knight v Axa Assurances QBD 24-Jul-2009
The claimant was injured in a car accident in France. The defendant insurer said that the quantification of damages was to be according to French law and the calculation of interest also. The claimant said that English law applied.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cox v Ergo Versicherung Ag CA 25-Jun-2012
The deceased member of the armed forces had died in a road traffic accident in Germany. The parties didputed whether the principles governing the calculation of damages were those in the 1976 Act and UK law, or under German law.
Held: ‘There . .
Cited – Cox v Ergo Versicherung Ag and Another QBD 28-Oct-2011
The deceased died in a road traffic accident whilst serving in the Armed forces in Germany. The driver was insured under German law. The widow now claimed damages in England. She had entered a new relationship.
Held: The object of section 844 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Insurance, European

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380326

Robbie the Pict, Regina (On the Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 24 Apr 2009

The defendant appealed against a conviction that he had driven a vehicle through a red light contrary to the provisions of section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and related regulations. He said that the Gatsometer device was not an approved device as required, saying that the 1991 Act required any such approval to be confirmed by Order in Parliament.
Held: The argument proposed departed from the clear meaning of the statute. The Deputy District judge had correctly found it to be a prescribed device.

Judges:

Davis J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1176 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 36(1), Road Traffic Act 1991 23, Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices)(No 2) Order 1992

Road Traffic

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374726

Vehicle Inspectorate v Nuttall: HL 18 Mar 1999

An operator accused of permitting contraventions of the drivers hours need only be shown to have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent contraventions by his drivers. A willful failure to inspect tachograph charts can amount to prima facie evidence.

Citations:

Times 19-Mar-1999, Gazette 21-Apr-1999, [1999] 1 WLR 629, [1999] UKHL 14, [1999] 3 All ER 833

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Road Transport Act 1968 96(IIA)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cambridgeshire County Council v Associated Lead Mills Ltd ChD 22-Jul-2005
The prosecutor appealed dismissal of the charge of driving a heavy commercial vehicle on a road which was subject to a maximum weight restriction in breach of the 1984 Act. The company denied that it had any knowledge of the actual route taken by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.158997

Bird v Pearce: CA 1979

The plaintiff was a passenger in a car on a major road which who was injured in a collision with a car which emerged from a minor road. The driver of the second car, who was agreed (as between the two cars) to be 90% responsible, joined the County Council (as highway authority) as a third party, alleging it had negligently removed and failed to repaint the warning lines which customarily indicated to drivers that they were entering upon a major road.
Held: By removing the lines, the council had created a hazard. By painting the lines the council had created an expectation on the part of users of the main road that there would be lines to warn people on side roads that they were entering a major road.

Citations:

[1979] RTR 369

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Weatherhill v Pearce ChD 7-Nov-1994
The testatrix had signed her name by the attestation clause before it was witnessed.
Held: A pre-signed will, on which the testator’s earlier signature was then acknowledged before a witness, and if there was appropriate evidence of her . .
Cited – Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant’s husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe.
Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.195691

Davies v Crown Prosecution Service (Bradford): Admn 13 May 2009

The defendant appealed against a decision not to find special reasons for not endorsing lis licence on his plea of guilty to speeding. He was a diabetic and had anticipated an hypoglycaemic attack. He had increased his speed so as to be able to draw to the side and take glucose.
Held: Though the court might have wished to be sympathetic, the law had been applied correctly. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Collins J

Citations:

[2009] RTR 35, [2009] EWHC 1172 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

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: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346856

Spiteri, Regina (On the Application of) v Basildon Crown Court: Admn 19 Mar 2009

The driver had successfully appealed against his conviction at the Magistrates, the court finding that the officer had not shown that he had asked a required question. He now appealed against refusal of an award of costs, the court having said that he had brought the prosecution on his own head by his conduct. The Crown Court refused to state a case.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Applying the Practice Direction, the Crown Court could not at the same time say that both that the defence was a mere technicality and acquit him. It was wrong at the same time to acquit him amd suggest that he was guilty of the offence. Also it was not sufficient to find that the defendant had brought the prosecution on himself. The Direction also required that he had misled the prosecution in some way as to the likelihodd of the success of the prosecution. That could not be said here.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 665 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Costs)

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Costs) 2004
‘Where a person is not tried for an offence for which he has been indicted, or in respect of which proceedings against him have been sent for trial or transferred for trial, or has been acquitted on any count in the indictment, the court may make a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Costs

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346850

Robbie the Pict v The Procurator Fiscal, Dumfries: HCJ 15 May 2009

The defendant appealed against his conviction for speeding. He said that the speed gun used was not a device of a type approved by the Secretary of State since the regulationas allowed approval of speed measuring mechanisms activated by light, whereas this manual speed gun was actived by the police officer pulling its ‘trigger’.
Held: The argument failed. ‘Whilst it may be said that the process of capture of the vehicle speed is initiated by the operator of the device pulling the trigger, it is obvious that the reading itself is initiated and completely dependant upon the light beams emitted from and received by the device and we have no hesitation in finding that it is a device which is ‘a device designed or adapted for recording a measurement of the speed of motor vehicles by means of a light beam or beams’.’

Judges:

Lord Carloway, Lord Emslie and Lord Abernethy

Citations:

[2009] ScotHC HCJAC – 49

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Robbie the Pict v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 26-Apr-2009
The defendant, a road traffic camera campaigner appealed against his conviction for contravening a red light traffic signal, saying that the camera was not approved.
Held: The appeal failed. A ‘prescribed device’ was a ‘device of a description . .

Cited by:

Applied – Brotherston and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Feb-2012
Four drivers said that the use of approved speed cameras for evidential purposes was unlawful. They argued that the cameras used were not ‘of a description specified’ under an Order.
Held: The appeals failed. The different speed trap . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Road Traffic

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346257

Bemner v Westwater: HCJ 1993

A police officer was driving in the opposite direction to the accused. He came round a bend in the road to face two vehicles, one was driven by the accused overtaking the other vehicle. He was in the police officer’s path. The officer braked, skidded and mounted the nearside verge, thus avoiding a head on collision. The sheriff had held that an accident had occurred owing to the presence of the accused’s vehicle on the road and that the requirements of s2(1) of the 1988 Act had been met.
Held: The appeal failed. The Lord Justice General said that the word ‘accident’ was to be given a commonsense meaning. It was not restricted to untoward or unintended consequences having an adverse physical effect.

Judges:

Lord Hope

Citations:

(1993) 1994 SLT 707

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Currie, Regina v CACD 26-Apr-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving. The failure of the police to serve him with a notice of intended prosecution invalidated the conviction. The police replied that there was no need for such a notice because there had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Road Traffic

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.251525

Regina v Greenwich London Borough Council, Ex Parte Williams and Others: QBD 29 Dec 1995

QBD A local authority has no power to close a road to control pollution from motor vehicles. Air pollution danger from traffic was not a sufficient ‘likelihood of danger.’

Citations:

Ind Summary 29-Jan-1996, Times 29-Dec-1995

Statutes:

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Environment

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.86767

Rider v Rider: CA 1973

Sachs LJ stated that ‘it is in my judgment clear that the corporation’s statutory duty under section 44 of the Act of 1959 is reasonably to maintain and repair the highway so that it is free of danger to all users who use that highway in the way normally to be expected of them — taking account, of course, of the traffic reasonably to be expected on the particular highway. Motorists who thus use the highway, and to whom a duty is owed, are not to be expected by the authority all to be model drivers. Drivers in general are liable to make mistakes, including some rated as negligent by the courts, without being merely for that reason stigmatised as unreasonable or abnormal drivers; some drivers may be inexperienced, and some drivers may find themselves in difficulties from which the more adept could escape. The highway authority must provide not merely for model drivers, but for the normal run of drivers to be found on their highways, and that includes those who make the mistakes which experience and common sense teaches are likely to occur.’ and ‘mere unevenness, undulations and minor potholes do not normally constitute a danger’ within the section.

Citations:

[1973] QB 505

Statutes:

Highways Act 1959 44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – West Sussex County Council v Russell CA 12-Feb-2010
The council appealed against a finding that it had failed in its duty to keep the highway safe leading to an accident in which the claimant was severely injured. The road was narrow, and a significant drop had developed by the edge of the road. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Personal Injury

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.401639

Clarke, Regina v: CACD 14 May 2009

The defendant appealed against his sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. He had suffered a hypoglycemic attack, but had not stopped. Expert evidence that he may not have been aware of the attack appeared to have been rejected by the jury.
Held: The highly exceptional circumstances of this case reduce the Appellant’s culpability to an extent which brings the offence significantly below the sentencing range which would normally apply in a case of driving whilst conscious of a significant medical impairment.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 921, [2009] RTR 32

Links:

Bailii

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.343900

Smith v Finch: QBD 22 Jan 2009

The claimant cyclist was severely injured in an accident when hit by a motorcyclist, the defendant. He was not wearing a cycle helmet, and the injuries were to his head. He was slowing down to turn right, and was hit a heavy glancing blow by the defendant approaching from the other direction.
Held: The defendant had been driving in excess of the speed limit.
The claimant had ‘made a good physical recovery from his injuries but the major impact of the head injuries has been upon cognition, behaviour and speech function; there are significant problems with memory, concentration and expressive dysphasia; he needs help with every day tasks but most importantly, he has developed post traumatic epilepsy.’
Given the guidance to cyclists in the Highway Code that they should wear cycle helmets, the logic of Froom v Butcher as to motorists not wearing seatbelts should be applied also to cyclists not wearing helmets: ‘It matters not that there is no legal compulsion for cyclists to wear helmets and so a cyclist is free to choose whether or not to wear one because there can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury; such a failure would not be ‘a sensible thing to do’ and so, subject to issues of causation, any injury sustained may be the cyclist’s own fault and ‘he has only himself to thank for the consequences’.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the cyclist who does not wear a helmet runs the risk of contributing to his/her injuries.’ and ‘As it is accepted that the wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances it must follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence would wear one, no matter whether on a long or a short trip or whether on quiet suburban roads or a busy main road.’
However it remained for the defendant to show that the particular injuries suffered would not have occurred if the claimant had been wearing a helmet. In this case he had not achieved that standard: ‘the injuries responsible for the Claimant’s residual disabilities were caused by a contre-coup injury – an injury from which a helmet would not have protected the Claimant.’

Judges:

Griffith Williams J

Citations:

[2009] EWCH 53 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Froom v Butcher CA 21-Jul-1975
The court asked what reduction if any should be made to a plaintiff’s damages where injuries were caused not only by the defendant’s negligent driving but also by the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt. It had been submitted that, since . .
Cited – Lewis v Denye CA 1939
Parcq LJ said: ‘In order to establish the defence of contributory negligence, the defendant must prove, first, that the plaintiff failed to take ‘ordinary care for himself,’ or, in other words, such care as a reasonable man would take for his own . .

Cited by:

Cited – Phethean-Hubble v Coles QBD 24-Feb-2011
The claimant had been very severely injured when knocked from his cycle by the defendant’s car. He had come out onto the roadway at night but without cycle lights, and into the path of the car. The claimant was not wearing a helmet.
Held: . .
Cited – Reynolds v Strutt and Parker LLP ChD 15-Jul-2011
The defendant had organised a team bonding day, including a cycling event. The claimant employee was severely injured falling from his cycle. He said that the defendant had been engligent in not providing cycling helmets. The circuit hosting company . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341870

Commission of The European Communities v Ireland: ECJ 21 Feb 2008

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Incorrect transposition Directive 84/5/EEC Article 1(4) Compulsory insurance for civil liability in respect of motor vehicles Conditions for the exclusion from compensation of passengers in an uninsured vehicle

Judges:

L. Bay Larsen, P

Citations:

C-211/07, [2008] EUECJ C-211/07

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 84/5/EEC

European, Road Traffic

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341251

Miller v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 25 Mar 2004

The defendant pleaded guilty by post in March 1999 to speeding offences. The magistrates wanted to consider and (unlawfully) issued a warrant backed for bail. The warrant was not served until 2001. The appeal took a further long period.
Held: The delay was so unreasonable for this kind of case as to amount to an infringement of the defendant’s rights. There had been no difficulty created however in deciding the case, and therefore the conviction stood. The issue was remedied to the extent possible, by treating the delay as an exceptional hardship, and reducing the consequent totting up disqualification to 5 months. An order for costs was confirmed against the CPS.

Judges:

Mr Justice Richards

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 595 (Admin), Times 07-Jun-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Road Traffic, Human Rights

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.194998

Brett v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 16 Mar 2009

The defendant faced trial for driving whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. On a pre-trial review, the prosecution had applied for the evidence of the analyst to be given under the hearsay provisions, on the basis that she was living abroad. She had not been warned and it was not reasonably practicable to secure her attendance. At trial, the deputy district judge considered that he was bound by that ruling and refused to hear further argument on the issue of admissibility. One aspect of the case stated was whether the district judge was correct.
Held: The court allowed the appeal, applying sections 8A and 8B of the 1980 Act. There was no question of the pre-trial ruling binding the deputy judge in relation to the trial. At the trial very different considerations obtained compared with the pre-trial hearing, in particular relating to the attendance by the analyst and securing her evidence since – by then – the prosecution could well have obtained her attendance.

Judges:

Leveson LJ, Sweeney J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 440 (Admin), [2009] 1 WLR 2530, (2009) 173 JP 274

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 2006 5(2)(a), Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 8A 8B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Chorley Justices and Forrest Admn 8-Jun-2006
The prosecutor applied for an order to require the magistrates to state a case. He faced a charge of driving with excess alcohol. He pleaded not guilty. There were several adjournments, and a considerable delay. At the trial, and with no . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area Admn 12-Mar-2010
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates to adjourn a case where, on the day before, a differently constitued bench had refused an adjournment requested by the prosecution. On the first occasion the prosecutor had not . .
Cited – Bielecki v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Aug-2011
The court had delivered a draft judgment which counsel said was based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the case she had presented. Counsel now suggested that the matter should be referred to a two judge divisional court. That was refused. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.323733

Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council v Latif: Admn 13 Feb 2009

The council appealed against a decision that the crown court had jurisdiction to extend the time for appeal against refusal of a private hire vehicle licence.
Held: The court did not have the jurisdiction it used: ‘The terms of the section 300 of the Public Health Act 1936 are, in my view clear. A fixed period of 21 days is given to bring an appeal. Parliament did not provide for an extension of time which it clearly could have done if that had been the intention. In addition Parliament made it mandatory that the document notifying the person of the decision should state the right of appeal and the time within which such an appeal might be brought. That, it seems to me, is a pointer to the importance of compliance with the time limit and would militate against any implied right of extending the time.’

Judges:

Christopher Symons QC

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 228 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town Police Clauses Act 1847, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 861, Public Health Act 1936 300, Civil Procedure Rules 3.1

Citing:

Cited – Vilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys Admn 22-Mar-2007
The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to apply the Rules to extend time to appeal against discharge of an extradition request. The notice of appeal was not filed (or served) within seven days.
Held: Latham LJ said: ‘I acknowledge . .
Cited – Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority 28-Apr-1998
(High Court of Australia) ‘In our opinion, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was correct in Tasker v Fullwood in criticising the continued use of the ‘elusive distinction between directory and mandatory requirements’ and the division of . .
Mentioned – Vilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys Admn 22-Mar-2007
The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to apply the Rules to extend time to appeal against discharge of an extradition request. The notice of appeal was not filed (or served) within seven days.
Held: Latham LJ said: ‘I acknowledge . .
Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Licensing

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.293922

Regina v Waters: 1963

A public House car park may be a public place for the purposes of the road traffic legislation during opening hours when the public may be expected to have recourse to it.

Citations:

(1963) 47 Cr App R 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – May v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Apr-2005
Whether the car park where the driving took place was a ‘public place’ within the meaning of section 3.
Held: The appeal failed.
Laws LJ set out the following propositions as accurately summarising the relevant legal principles:
a. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.231476

Kay v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis: HL 26 Nov 2008

The claimant had been involved in a monthly cycle ride through central London which had continued for many years. The ride took place without any central organisation and without any route being pre-planned. They objected to being required to apply for a licence and to file a route with the Commissioner under section 11. The question was whether each ride was the same procession, and whether it was ‘commonly or customarily’ held.
Held: Mr Kay’s appeal succeeded. A regular procession need not follow the same route each time. The fact that no person or persons organised the procession meant that no person held any duty under the Act, and section 11 had no application.
Lord Rodger said: ‘if Parliament had actually intended to use the Public Order Act 1986 to outlaw processions of that kind without a predetermined route, then it would not have done so by a side wind in a section creating a system of notification: it would have done so specifically. Section 13 contains a carefully crafted measure which allows councils, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to prohibit public processions in certain specified circumstances. Where the Act contains a specific provision prohibiting certain processions, there is no room for implying into another provision a requirement which would have the effect of prohibiting a different type of procession by exposing the organisers to a criminal conviction and fine.’
Lord Phillips said: ‘Critical Mass is not an organisation but the name given to a recurrent event. It takes place in central London on the evening of the last Friday of every month, as it has done since April 1994. Similar events take place on the last Friday of every month in many other cities throughout the world. Critical Mass starts at the same location, (the South Bank near the National Theatre) at the same time (6 pm). It is featured in Time Out magazine. It is in the nature of Critical Mass that there is no fixed, settled or predetermined route, end-time or destination; where Critical Mass goes, where and what time it ends are all things which are chosen by the actions of the participants on the day.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2008] UKHL 69, [2008] 1 WLR 2723, [2009] RTR 16, [2009] HRLR 10, [2009] 2 All ER 935

Links:

Bailii, HL, Times

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First Instance – Kay v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn 27-Jun-2006
For many years and in many large cities, once a month, cyclists had gathered en masse to cycle through the city in a ‘Critical Mass’ demonstration. There was no central organisation. Clarification was sought as to whether the consent of the police . .
Appeal from – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Kay CA 21-May-2007
The commissioner appealed against a judgment that a mass cycle ride held regularly but over different routes did not first require notice to be given.
Held: The commissioner’s appeal succeeded. The fact that the route changed meant that the . .
Cited – Flockhart v Robinson 1950
A challenge was made to the organising of a procession. Its route was determined by Mr Flockhart as he went along.
Held: For the purposes of section 3(4) of the 1936 Act, a procession ‘is a body of persons moving along a route’ and that, by . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) HL 13-Mar-2003
Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention
The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act.
Held: The challenge failed. The court was to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
Cited – Powlesland v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 9-Dec-2013
The defendant apealed against his conviction for having taken part in a public procession, a a Critical Mass Cycle Ride, knowingly in breach of conditions attached to it by the Police. The defendant had argued that the ride was not a procession.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Road Traffic

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278297

Regina v Rutter: 1976

A defendant who wished to challenge the analysis of a properly taken and analysed part specimen of blood had to challenge it by analysis of his own part specimen. A defendant who sought to establish that the part specimen analysed on behalf of the prosecution did not come from him, could call evidence establishing that he had nothing to drink or that a mistake was made, but it was not open to him to attempt, by calling expert evidence, to indulge in hypothetical calculations on uncertain and unproven facts. The judge had correctly ruled that the expert evidence sought to be adduced by the applicant was inadmissible.

Judges:

Roskill LJ

Citations:

[1976] RTR 105

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: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.242943

King Lifting Ltd v Oxfordshire County Council: QBD 20 Jul 2016

A heavy crane had toppled from a road. The crane owners said that the highway authority were responsible for the poor condition of the road.
Held: The action failed. The evidence did not support the assertion that the accident arose from a road insufficiently maintained.

Judges:

Reddihough HHJ

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1767 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 41(1) 58(2) 329(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – West Sussex County Council v Russell CA 12-Feb-2010
The council appealed against a finding that it had failed in its duty to keep the highway safe leading to an accident in which the claimant was severely injured. The road was narrow, and a significant drop had developed by the edge of the road. The . .
Cited – Goodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
Cited – Rider v Rider CA 1973
The plaintiff was a passenger in a car which her husband was driving and which collided with a van. The husband had been driving too fast. The edge of the tarmac on the road abutted grass verges at a lower level and the edge had been inadequately . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.567639