The claimant objected that in the proposed regeneration of the area in which its retail park was set, a traffic layout proposed by the defendant would include a traffic island which would prevent access to the park by travellers coming from one direction.
Collins J
[2008] EWHC 3023 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278828
Waller VP CA, Carnwath, Wilson LJJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1313, [2009] PIQR P8, [2009] RTR 11, [2009] 1 CMLR 45, [2009] Eu LR 383, [2009] CP Rep 15
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278672
Bridge LJ considered the meaning of the word ‘accident’, and, after saying that there had been many authorities for different stautory and contractual contexts, said: ‘It is, in my judgment, a word which has a perfectly well understood meaning in ordinary parlance, but that meaning is an elastic one according to the context in which the word is used.’ The attempt to define the word in Morris must be understood in relation to the particular facts of that case, and ‘I approach the matter here by asking whether in the ordinary man’s understanding of the word, especially having regard to the mischief at which this statue is aimed, the man in the street would say in such circumstances as those with which we are concerned that an accident had occurred owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road.’
Bridge LJ
[1979] RTR 446
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Morris 1972
Whether the particular facts of a case amount to an accident is a question of law. In a case of disputed facts under s2(2) of the 1967 Act it is for the jury to decide the facts and apply to the facts found the judge’s direction as to the meaning of . .
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.
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.251524
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles – Directive 2009/103/EC – Article 3, first paragraph – Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ – National legislation excluding the driving of motor vehicles on roads and terrain that are not ‘suitable for use by motor vehicles’, with the exception of those which, though not suitable, are nonetheless ‘ordinarily so used’
C-334/16, [2017] EUECJ C-334/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:1007
European
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.602101
The court considered the circumstances under which evidence of previous convictions could be admitted against a defendant where he did not admit that he was the same person.
Newman J
[2005] EWHC 2938 (Admin), [2006] 2 All ER 317
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Burns CACD 1-Mar-2006
The defendant complained that the court had wrongfully admitted evidence of a previous conviction on the basis only that he shared the name and date of birth of the person convicted. The conviction was used as evidence of his propensity to be . .
Cited – Mills v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Dec-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified, saying that they had had insufficient evidence that he was such. It was not disputed that he was driving. Previous convictions for the same offence had been entered, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.238178
Application for judicial review on behalf of the claimant, Mr Robert Humphreys, brought against the parking adjudicator in respect of a Penalty Charge Notice.
Coe QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC 713 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.545110
Prosecutor’s appeal against dismissal of charge of driving without insurance.
[2008] EWHC 1814 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271233
Appeal against refusal of claim against highway authority. The appellant was injured when her car crashed. A high volume of heavy goods vehicles had been using a local road, damaging the road and verges. Though the road was wide enough for her car to pass a lorry coming toward her, the appellant held to her side, and the nearside wheels fell into the damaged verge. On freeing the car from the rut, it careered across the road colliding with a tree and causing the injury. Locals had complained about the unsafe condition of the road to the respondent, the responsible highway authority.
Held: The appeal failed. Though the judge had erred in the way he had applied the case of Griffiths, a minor breach of he code of practice need not of itself create liability in the Council, and there was evidence which supported his conclusions.
Beldam LJ said: ‘section 58(2) requires the court in particular to have regard to certain matters in deciding whether the authority has in fact discharged the burden of showing a defence under section 58: First, the character of the highway and the traffic which might reasonably be expected to use it; secondly, the standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that character; thirdly, the state of repair that the reasonable person would have expected to find the highway in; and, fourthly, whether the highway authority knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that the condition of that part of the highway would be likely to cause danger to users of the highway, and where the highway authority could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the highway before the cause of action arose, what notices of its condition had been displayed.
Applying those considerations to this case and observing the nature and condition of this road from the photographs which were before the Judge, it seems to me that this road was not in an unexpected condition for a road of its type. The presence of worn verges with ruts at either side is not unusual in the roads in our country districts, particularly now that they are used by many vehicles for which they are quite unsuitable in many instances.’
Beldam, Otton LJJ
[1997] EWCA Civ 1064
England and Wales
Cited – Griffiths v Liverpool Corporation CA 1967
The Highways Act of 1961 had enlarged the duty of the highway authority and made it a general duty to take reasonable care to secure that the highway was not dangerous to traffic.
As to the effect of the 1961 Act, Diplock LJ said: ‘The duty at . .
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 . .
Cited – Mills v Barnsley Borough Council CA 1992
The court considered the extent of defect in a highway needed to found a claim that it was dangerous. It emphasised that the duty must not be made too high, balancing the public need against the private interest.
Steyn LJ said: ‘For my part I . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.141460
The claimant challenged the removal of exemption from liability to pay the congestion charge from private hire vehicles, save those designated wheelchair accessible.
Lewis J
[2019] WLR(D) 429, [2019] EWHC 1997 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.640127
(Crown Court at Harrow) The motorist, while driving, had been using his mobile phone to listen to music which was stored in the phone. In evidence he demonstrated how he changed the music tracks on his phone which he held in his hand, using his thumb. The issue was whether that conduct constituted using a mobile phone within the meaning of Regulation 110 and Section 41D. The court ruled that it did not because it did not involve any external communication.
Unreported, 23 September 2018
England and Wales
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Barreto Admn 31-Jul-2019
Non-communications use of phone not caught
The DPP appealed from a decision overturning the conviction of the respondent for the use while driving of a mobile phone to take pictures.
Held: The phrasing of the statute limited the offence to one of using the phone for communication . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.640139
[2008] EWHC 1443 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270606
Directive 91/439/EEC – Mutual recognition of driving licences – Withdrawal of a licence in one Member State for use of narcotic drugs or alcohol – New licence issued in another Member State – Refusal to recognise right to drive in the first Member State – Residence not in accordance with Directive 91/439/EEC
[2008] ECR I-4635, C-329/06, [2008] EUECJ C-329/06, [2008] 3 CMLR 18
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270547
[2008] EWHC 1335 (Admin)
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270062
[2008] EWHC 1254 (Admin)
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270044
Saunders J
[2008] EWHC 1200 (Admin)
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268717
Richard Seymour QC J
[2007] EWHC 1264 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.253478
The defendant appealed a decision of the magistrates to adjourn his trial for a breathaliser offence when the Crown Prosecution Service had not warned officers to attend to give evidence. On this application, the CPS filed an acknowledgment, did not attend the hearing or seek to justify its failure to warn the police officers. No excuse was given and no explanation as to why no steps had been taken to warn the relevant witnesses to attend.
Held: The court should be careful not to give the impression to prosecuting authorities that inefficiency which leads to a failure to take steps which ought to have been taken and the absence of which result in an application for an adjournment is something which the courts will tolerate. Mitchell J said: ‘Furthermore, these reasons were given in the absence of any ‘rigorous scrutiny’ of the application. The longer courts tolerate the sort of inefficiency which seems, in each of these cases, to be the explanation for the failure of the witnesses to attend court on the date fixed for the hearing, the longer it will continue. To tolerate it is to encourage it.’
Mitchell J
[2003] EWHC 708 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – W, Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Youth Court and Another Admn 10-Sep-2004
The defendant sought a Judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to adjourn case at request of prosecutor. The prosecutor had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations, and de-warned its witnesses before the date fixed for trial.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.185594
The claimant said that the rejection of his claim against the MIB was out ouf time under the MIB scheme, where, had the claim been against the driver, the claim would have succeeded.
Held: The Bureau’s appeal failed. European law imposed a duty to ensure that the scheme for compensating victims of uninsured drivers was no less generous than the scheme which applied as between insured drivers. The British scheme provided for a shorter limitation period for such claimas and accordingly was in breach of European law.
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Carnwath
[2008] EWCA Civ 574, Times 02-Jul-2008
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983, Untraced Drivers Agreement 1972
England and Wales
Appeal from – Byrne (A Minor) v The Motor Insurers Bureau, Secretary of State for Transport QBD 5-Jun-2007
The court was asked whether the UK provisions for the Motor Insurers bureau met the requirements of the European Directive.
Held: The UK had failed to implement the directive properly by imposing a three year limit on claims when no such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267968
[2008] EWHC 643 (Admin)
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266888
[2008] NICA 10
Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
Northern Ireland
Cited – Taylor v Rajan 2-Jan-1974
The defendant had consumed alcohol so that the alcohol level was 102 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. An appeal was heard as to whether there existed special reasons for not disqualifying him.
Held: The court considered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266763
[2008] EWHC 441 (Admin)
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266174
[2008] EWHC 386 (Admin)
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.266090
[2008] EWHC 303 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.266023
The defendant driver had been stopped and required to provide a specimen of breath. She failed to do so, and gave no reason. At trial she produced nedical evidence, accepted by the magistrates, that she suffered asthma and a hyperventilation syndrome, but she was convicted after the magistrates concluded that she should have told the police of the reason.
Held: It would be wrong to import a requirement that was not set out in the statute. The appeal succeeded.
Moses LJ, Sullivan J
[2008] EWHC 305 (Admin), Times 10-Mar-2008
Not to be followed – Teape v Godfrey 1986
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.266039
[2006] EWHC 662 (Admin)
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263470
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 place where the plaintiff is domiciled.
By virtue of Articles 11(2) and 9(1)(b) of Regulation EC 44/2001 (‘Regulation 44’) a person injured in a motor accident who has a right to bring proceedings directly against the insurer of the driver responsible for his injury is entitled to bring those proceedings before the courts of the Member State in which he is domiciled, provided that the insurer is domiciled in a Member State.
CWA Timmermans, P
C-463/06, [2007] EUECJ C-463/06, [2008] ILPr 12, [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 733, [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 354, (2007) ECR 1-11321
Regulation EC 44/2001 11(2) 9(1)(b)
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 – Bacon v Nacional Suiza Cia Seguros Y Reseguros Sa QBD 30-Jul-2010
The claimant was injured in a road traffic accident in Spain, and sought to claim here. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Wall v Mutuelle De Poitiers Assurances QBD 25-Jan-2013
. .
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.
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262915
Justices to seek guidance from clerk on failing to provide specimen of breath.
Times 05-Apr-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.80041
Appeal by defendant against decision of magistrates to adjourn trial to allow attendance of prosecution witness.
[2007] EWHC 2005 (Admin)
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.259205
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved type. The appeal failed.
Reliance had been placed on the fact that the guide to type approval relating to the device provided that the gas delivery system should comprise an automatic change over valve, whereas the device in question had a manual change over valve. Nelson J said there was no reference in the schedule to the approval to the guide, and he could not see no reason that it had been incorporated within the approval. The definition of the device stood by itself in the schedule of the approval and did not admit a further identification or specification: ‘[If] for example the Intoximeter EC/IR had no gas delivery system or had significantly different software version it would not be an approved device under the Schedule of the Approval. But there must be room to make sensible modifications without having to seek a new approval every time this is done. The test must be whether the description in the schedule still properly applies. If it does not, then the device is no longer an approved device; but if the description does still properly apply to the device it will remain an approved device even though modifications or alterations have been made. Thus the removal of one cylinder, which did not affect the operation of the device, did not take it out of the Approval. Nor in my judgment, would the supply of a device with a manual change-over valve, rather than an automatic change-over valve when the machine had two cylinders, render it no longer an approved device. It remained an Intoximeter EC/IR with a gas deliver system.’
Sedley LJ, Nelson J
[2007] EWHC 2013 (Admin), [2005] RTR 8
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15(2)
Cited – Rayner v Hampshire Chief Constable 1971
A breathalyser bag with a hole in it was not equipment which comprised a device of a type approved by the Secretary of State. . .
Cited – Badkin v Director of Public Prosecutions 1988
The defendant driver had provided two specimens of breath at the police station. The device used failed to provide a printout and the constable operating it decided that it could be unreliable. He required the defendant to provide a specimen of . .
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 . .
Cited – Parish v Director of Public Prosecutions (Orse Parrish v Director of Public Prosecutions) QBD 1-Nov-1999
The defendant motorist was accused of driving with excess alcohol. There had been a difference in readings between two samples taken within a short time of each other.
Held: He should have been allowed an adjournment to bring his own expert . .
Cited – Murphy v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 20-Jun-2006
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor should have put in evidence the results of the roadside breath test. Mitting J referred to the case of Badkin: ‘But nothing in the judgment of Glidewell LJ leads to the conclusion that . .
Cited – O’Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions 27-Mar-2000
Where a motorist challenges the accuracy of the intoximeter, there is only an evidential burden on him. . .
Cited – Kemsley v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 4-Feb-2004
The defendant appealed a conviction for driving with excess alcohol. She said she had not first been cautioned when interviewed after an accident and that her admission that she had been driving should not have been allowed in evidence.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Cooksley CA 2003
. .
Cited – Coxon v Manchester City Magistrates Court Admn 11-Mar-2010
The defendant sought judicial review of the magistrate’s refusal to state a case for an appeal against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that the intoximeter used had not received type approval as required. The defendant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258859
Keene LJ, Poole J
[2005] EWHC 3535 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258661
Challenge to road traffic regulation order
[1995] EWHC 13 (Admin), [1995] RTR 346
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.381588
(Grand Chamber) Each defendant claimed that the obligation imposed on them to name the driver of a motor vehicle caught by a traffic camera prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
Held: The application failed. The nature of the obligation did not destroy the right to remain silent or the privilege against self incrimination. It did not follow from previous cases that any direct compulsion will automatically result in a violation: ‘While the right to a fair trial under article 6 is an unqualified right, what constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case.’
15809/02, (2008) 46 EHRR 21, [2007] ECHR 545, Times 13-Jul-2007
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254320
The court was asked whether the UK provisions for the Motor Insurers bureau met the requirements of the European Directive.
Held: The UK had failed to implement the directive properly by imposing a three year limit on claims when no such limitation was allowed by the directive. That failure arose not from any policy, but mere and inexcusable inadvertence. The breach was sufficiently serious to leave the Secretary of State liable for damages.
Flaux J
[2007] EWHC 1268 (QB), Times 15-Jun-2007, [2008] 2 WLR 234
England and Wales
Appeal from – Byrne (A Minor) v The Motor Insurers Bureau and Another CA 22-May-2008
The claimant said that the rejection of his claim against the MIB was out ouf time under the MIB scheme, where, had the claim been against the driver, the claim would have succeeded.
Held: The Bureau’s appeal failed. European law imposed a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253212
The driver of a lorry carrying the claimant’s goods was said to have fallen asleep at the wheel, and the cargo damaged in the accident. The carrier appealed a finding of liability for wilful misconduct.
Held: ‘I am unable to accept that mere knowledge on the part of a driver that he was sleepy and a decision to continue to drive would constitute wilful misconduct.’ and ‘The state of mind of the driver who is sleepy and continues to drive is likely to be that he believes he will beat the sleep and be safe. A professional lorry driver is in a different position from an ordinary driver particularly because limits are set by regulations. He knows that the limits are set to avoid the risk of falling asleep, and if he deliberately ignores those limits he is guilty of wilful misconduct.’ The judge did not find the defendant to have driven in breach of regulations or to have had any other more specific indication that he was failing to control the tiredness. The appeal succeeded.
Waller LJ VP, Tuckey LJ, Toulson LJ
Times 11-May-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 405
England and Wales
Mentioned – Horobin 1952
Barry J sought to define wilful misconduct through negligence as: ‘he took a risk which he knew he ought not to take.’ . .
Cited – National Semiconductors (UK) Ltd v UPS Ltd 1996
Longmore J sought to define the term ‘wilful misconduct’ as established by the authorities: ‘If I summarise the principle in my own words, it would be to say that for wilful misconduct to be proved there must be either (1) an intention to do . .
Cited – Graham v Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Co 1901
The court had to construe the phrase ‘wilful misconduct’.
Held: ‘Wilful misconduct in such a special condition means misconduct to which the will is party as contradistinguished from accident, and is far beyond any negligence, even gross or . .
Cited – Forder v Great Western Railway Company 1905
The court construed the phrase ‘wilful misconduct’.
Held: The court adopted the definition given in Graham, Lord Alverstone CJ adding: ‘The addition which I would suggest is, ‘or acts with reckless carelessness, not caring what the results of . .
Cited – Datec Electronic Holdings Ltd and Another v United Parcels Service Ltd and Another ComC 22-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for the loss of goods in transit under the care of the defendant. Andrew Smith J held as regards the burden of proof in an allegation of wilful misconduct: ‘I should add that I was properly reminded by counsel that the . .
Cited – Laceys Footwear (Wholesale) Ltd v Bowler International Freight Ltd and Another CA 18-Apr-1997
The defendant’s driver had taken a consignment of shoes to Spain, where they were stolen. The plaintiff alleged his gross negligence amounted to ‘wilful misconduct’ so as to disapply an exemption clause.
Held: Whether a bailee’s acts . .
Cited – Jones v Mrtin Bencher Ltd 1986
A deliberate disregard by a driver of EEC Regulations which govern the length of time that it was permissible for him to drive without a break amounted to ‘wilful misconduct’ when he fell asleep at the wheel and the goods he was carrying were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251615
The claimant motorcyclist passed a stationary lorry turning right. The defendant’s car emerged slowly from in front of the lorry to turn right. The car and cycle collided.
Held: The claimant failed. The judge had considered the facts carefully. The cyclist was described as reckless, and the car driver very cautious. ‘That is not to say that in all such cases a driver who fails to nose-poke or emerges continuously at ‘about 5 – 8 miles per hour’ will avoid a finding of negligence. It is common ground in this case and bears emphasis that cases such as this are very fact-sensitive.’
Pill LJ, Wall LJ, Maurice Kay LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 403
England and Wales
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251636
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 an accident. The driver had been stopped but had then driven off. A police officer had had to place her hands on the bonnet to balance herself when avoiding it, and she had lost her grip on the door. The defendant said that the issue of whether there had been an accident should have been decided by a jury.
Held: The case of Seward could be distinguished, because the question of whether there had been an accident related not to the offence itself, but to the procedure involved, and ‘the reference to ‘court’ in what is now s2(3) of the 1988 Act means the judge when the case is proceeding in the crown court. The issues which the judge is required to decide under that subsection will plainly involve issues of fact. Other issues of fact can arise under section 1(1), for example whether the defendant was warned at the time of the offence that he might be prosecuted e.g. a police officer says he was warned but the defendant says he was not. The subsection is silent as to who decides such questions, but it seems to us that the whole of sections 1 and 2 are directed to the need to ensure that as far as possible defendants are not taken by surprise in relation to motoring offences to which s1 of the Act applies. What is required is that by one means or another they should have notice of the relevant event in sufficient time to be able to recall it themselves and recall it to others who may be able to give evidence on their behalf.’
Baker LJ, Openshaw J, Sir Richard Curtis
[2007] EWCA Crim 926
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 2
England and Wales
Cited – Rex v Bolkis CCA 1932
The defendant complained that a jury had not been asked a question of fact, namely whether his name and address could not be discovered withut due diligence. The section had a proviso that failure to comply with the section was not a bar to . .
Cited – Regina v Seward 1970
The section in the 1967Act required as a precondition to a request for a breath specimen that an accident had occurred. The defendant complained that this was an issue of fact, but had been decided by the deputy chairman and not the jury.
Cited – Regina v Morris 1972
Whether the particular facts of a case amount to an accident is a question of law. In a case of disputed facts under s2(2) of the 1967 Act it is for the jury to decide the facts and apply to the facts found the judge’s direction as to the meaning of . .
Cited – Regina v Stacey CA 1982
The defendant had been arrested for driving whilst unfit through drink. He was warned three hours later that he might be prosecuted for reckless driving. In fact he was not charged with any offence relating to drink. When tried for reckless driving . .
Cited – Fenton v J Thorley and Co Ltd HL 1903
A workman who ruptured himself by an act of over-exertion in trying to turn a wheel was held to have suffered an injury ‘by accident.’ The act of turning the wheel was not in itself an accident. But the injury which the man sustained while carrying . .
Cited – Chief Constable of West Midlands Police v Billingham 1979
Bridge LJ considered the meaning of the word ‘accident’, and, after saying that there had been many authorities for different stautory and contractual contexts, said: ‘It is, in my judgment, a word which has a perfectly well understood meaning in . .
Cited – Gibson v Dalton CA 1980
The requirement to notify a defendant of the possibility of a prosecution is to allow him to preserve any necessary evidence. . .
Cited – 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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251506
Apportionment of blame in road traffic accident.
[2002] EWCA Civ 1557
England and Wales
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.217685
[2007] NICA 12
Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
Cited – Taylor v Rajan 2-Jan-1974
The defendant had consumed alcohol so that the alcohol level was 102 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. An appeal was heard as to whether there existed special reasons for not disqualifying him.
Held: The court considered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251204
Collins J
[2007] EWHC 552 (Admin)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847& 45, Road Traffic Act 1988 143
England and Wales
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251148
[1996] EWHC Admin 22
England and Wales
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.136570
The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of the magistrates to state a case for him to appeal to the High Court. He had been convicted of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. The magistrates considered the request frivolous within the 1980 Act. He held, as a finding of fact, that the defendant had not been misled by the form as he claimed to have been.
Held: the request to state a case was frivolous, and was properly refused.
The Lord Chief Justice Of England (Lord Bingham Of Cornhill ) And Mr Justice Cresswell
[1995] EWHC Admin 3
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6), Magistrates Courts Act 1980 111(5)
England and Wales
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Billington 1988
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.136188
After a car crash claims were settled for some claims but the defendant said that one claimant had not been in the car at the time.
Walker J
[2008] EWHC 1896 (QB), [2008] RTR 31
England and Wales
Appeal from – Shah v Ul-Haq and Others CA 9-Jun-2009
The defendant appealed against a refusal to strike out the claimant’s action saying that the claimant had been involved in a fraud upon the court in an earlier associated claim.
Held: The Rule gave no power to strike out a claim on such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.271315
[2006] EWHC 3429 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249154
[2006] EWHC 3328 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249141
Collins J
[2006] EWHC 3336 (Admin)
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249173
The defendant appealed against his conviction for speeding. The speed camera was placed just after the 30mph limit was imposed, and the signs were obscured by foliage.
Held: There was no case law direct on the point. The appeal was allowed. It was unnecessary to determine whether it would be sufficient for a defendant to say in respect of one only of the roadside signs that it did not ‘indicate’ the limit. Nor was it necessary to determine whether it would be sufficient that such a failure arose for reasons that might not reasonably be expected. It was impossible to do anything other than to conclude that in the appellant’s case the requirement that the signs make the situation known to the driver was not met. The ordinary meaning of the words of section 85(4) is that there are two tests namely that there were signs as is mentioned in section 85(1) or (2) and secondly that they indicated the relevant speed limit.
Walker J
Times 29-Dec-2006, [2006] EWHC 3263 (Admin)
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 81(1) 85 89(1)
Cited – Hood v Lewis QBD 1976
The court overturned a finding that the defendant was not guilty of the offence of speeding because he had not seen relevant signs. . .
Cited – Wawrzynczyk v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Constabulary QBD 28-Feb-2000
A motorist was convicted of speeding. On the stretch of road subject to the temporary limit an additional part had been included falsely representing the correct ends of the limited stretch. Nevertheless, the motorist was accused of speeding within . .
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.
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249160
The claimant had stepped out from behind a vehicle and was struck by the defendant’s truck. The defendant appealed a finding of 30% negligence, saying he had only one second to avoid the impact. He did not see her, but his passenger did.
Held: The scene was busy as school closed. The judge was correct however to say that the driver might have avoided a collision if he had seen her by swerving.
Pill LJ said: ‘a driver exercising reasonable care cannot be expected to focus his attention in a number of different directions when driving in a busy high street’
Pill LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 120
England and Wales
Cited – Toropdar v D QBD 20-Mar-2009
The claimant car driver sought a declaration that he was not responsible for an accident. He had been driving along when the 10 year old boy ran out into his path suffering catastrophic brain injury.
Held: ‘on the assumption that Mr Toropdar . .
Cited – Jackson v Murray and Another SC 18-Feb-2015
Child not entirely free of responsibility
The claimant child, left a school bus and stepped out from behind it into the path of the respondent’s car. She appealed against a finding of 70% contributory negligence.
Held: Her appeal succeeded (Majority, Lord Hodge and Lord Wilson . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248928
Keith J
[2007] EWHC 224 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248926
The court considered the effect on sentencing for road traffic cases after the increase in sentence maxima for causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, and the effect on the guidelines in Cooksley.
Held: The guidelines in Cooksley should be revisited so that where there were no aggravating circumstances: imprisonment for 12 months to two years; Intermediate culpability: two to four and a half years; Higher culpability: four and a half to seven years; Most serious culpability: seven to 14 years.
Sir Igor Judge, President, Mr Justice Forbes and Mr Justice Royce
[2006] EWCA Crim 3186, Times 15-Jan-2007, [2007] 2 CAR (S) 36, [2007] 2 All ER 601, [2007] 2 Cr App R (S) 36
Criminal Justice Act 2003 285, Road Safety Act 2006
England and Wales
Cited – Cooksley, Stride, Cook, Crump v Regina; Attorney General’s Reference No 152 of 2002 CACD 3-Apr-2003
JUDGMENT SUMMARY
(Not part of the judgment of the Court)
The judgment which is being handed down today relates to an Attorney General’s Reference and three appeals against sentence. The cases have been listed together to enable the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247426
Challenge to accuracy of speed gun.
Waller LJ, Treacy J
[2006] EWHC 3137 (Admin)
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 89, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 20
England and Wales
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247335
The appellant had convicted of an offence under s5 on the basis of evidence provided by a laboratory test of a blood sample provided under section 8(2). In each case it was contended that the prosecution were required to prove that the intoximeter was working properly before evidence of the test of the blood specimen was admissible.
[1996] CLR 343
England and Wales
Cited – Branagan v The Director of Public Prosecutions 2000
The defendant appealed against his conviction of driving with excess alcohol, on the basis of a blood sample. He said that it was a requirement that the intoximeter should be shown to be working properly before the evidence of the blood sample was . .
Cited – Wright v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 25-May-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the device used to measure his breath at the police station, the EC/IR intoximeter, was not an approved device. The court had refused to accept evidence to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.228429
When the appellant appeared at the Magistrates’ Court to answer a charge of driving whilst uninsured, a preliminary point was taken on her behalf that the prosecution had not been commenced within 6 months of the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant proceedings had become available. In response the prosecutor relied upon a certificate issue under section 6(3). The Magistrates, having heard argument, formed the view that the certificate issued by the prosecution as to its date of knowledge was conclusive and that they could not go behind it. They held further that the proceedings were not an abuse of process. The defendant appealed the decision that the magistrates could not go behind the certificate.
Auld LJ had this to say about the circumstances in which a prosecutor’s certificate was susceptible to challenge: ‘Ms Gumbel, who appeared on behalf of the Applicant, submitted that the Magistrates were wrong to rule that they could not hear evidence going behind the certificate as to the date on which there was evidence sufficient for the prosecutor to mount these proceedings. She frankly conceded that there are no reported authorities giving guidance on the interpretation of section 6(3). However, she drew our attention to decisions in other contexts on the meaning of ‘conclusive evidence’. She referred us to a number of cases of contract and of public record where the courts have had to consider how conclusive the evidence is whenever a dispute arises as to underlying matters. They show in the main a resolve by the court to give the predictable effect of those words. A good indication of the general approach is to be found in the judgment of Simonds J in Kerr v Mottram Ltd [1940] Ch 657 where the term ‘conclusive evidence’ was considered in the context of articles of association of a company. Simonds J said: ‘I have no doubt that the words ‘conclusive evidence’ mean what they say; that they are to be a bar to any evidence being tendered to show that the statements and the minutes are not correct.’
Ms Gumbel sought to distinguish that and the other authorities, to which she helpfully referred us, by reference to the fact that in the contract cases the conclusiveness of evidence was clearly the mutual intention of the parties, and in the cases of public record there was a public interest or an interest of a third party to be considered for whom certainty in such matters is important. She submitted that in the context of a prosecution of an individual there are different considerations. She maintained that the original 6-month period for issuing proceedings should be given certainty, and that an extension of that time limit however achieved, in this instance by certification, on a basis that is not justified on the facts should be open to investigation by Magistrates.
Mr McGuinness, adopting the words of Simonds J in Kerr v Mottram, submitted that the sub-section means what it says, that the certificate is conclusive evidence and that if a court, whether a Magistrates’ court or this court, were to look at evidence put forward as capable of unseating the certificate the word ‘conclusive’ would have no meaning. He submitted that there were only two possible exceptions:
(i) where it is plain that there has been fraud, and
(ii) where the certificate is wrong or arguably wrong on its face.
He referred to a helpful summary of the law which is set out in volume 17 of the current edition of Halsbury’s Laws, at paragraph 28, which has a side heading:
‘Prima facie, sufficient and conclusive evidence’.
As to ‘conclusive evidence’ it reads:’
‘Conclusive evidence means that no contrary evidence will be effective to displace it, unless the so called conclusive evidence is inaccurate on its face, or fraud can be shown.’
It is not suggested here that the certificate can be said to be inaccurate on its face, and no fraud is alleged.
The clear purpose of section 6(3) is to achieve certainty, both for the prosecutor and for the Defendant, and to prevent what would otherwise be an exercise in discovery of a prosecuting process as to when a particular information came to hand and as to when decisions as to its sufficiency could or should have been made. Clearly any such possibility in the context of this sort of provision would be an intolerable burden to the prosecution and a cog on the wheels of justice at summary level.
It has to be remembered, too, that the test in section 6(1) is whether the date on which evidence ‘sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings has come to his knowledge’. As in many other matters concerning the prosecution of offences there is a margin of judgment given to the prosecutor. In my view, there is no way of going behind section 6(3) as suggested by Ms Gumbel so as to negate its clear provision that a certificate for this purpose is conclusive, save possibly in the two exceptional cases to which I have referred.’
Auld LJ, Ebsworth J
[1996] EWHC Admin 14
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
England and Wales
Cited – Lamont-Perkins v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA) Admn 24-Apr-2012
The defendant had been convicted of animal cruelty. She appealed to the Crown Court, and now appealed against rulings made by the judge as to the time limits for a prosecution under the 2006 Act in the Magistrates Court. She said that the RSPCA . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.136562
[1963] 1 QB 275
England and Wales
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.
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.442525
The claimant’s husband died in a road traffic accident. The other driver was not insured. The claimant began an action against the MIB, but failed first to give the necessary notice. She now appealed an order preventing her discontinuing the action so as to allow service of the necessary notice and re-issue out of time as an abuse of process.
Held: The aim of the requirement for notice was not to work as a form of limitation, but to prevent a party commencing an action and obtaining judgment by default.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Scott Baker and Lord Justice Leveson
[2006] EWCA Civ 1662, Times 13-Dec-2006
England and Wales
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246804
[2006] EWCA Civ 1538
England and Wales
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246071
Whether a motor-cycle which was left on a pavement, but with both wheels off the floor was ‘parked with a wheel on part of a road other than a carriageway’.
Tuckey LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1060
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244477
Procedures for testing driver for alcohol
The Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ
[2003] EWHC 3078 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.191213
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 forewarning, the defence requested the prosecution to prove service of the certificate of analysis. The address used had been partially incorrect. The magistrates upheld a submission of no case to answer, and rejected a request to state a case as frivolous.
Held: The purpose of the system was to avoid unnecessary litigation and delay.
Thomas LJ said: ‘In April 2005 the Criminal Procedure Rules came into effect. By 15th April they were in force. They have effected a sea change in the way in which cases should be conducted, but it appears from what has happened in this case that not everyone has appreciated the fundamental change to the conduct of cases in the Magistrates’ Courts that has been brought about by the rules. The rules make clear that the overriding objective is that criminal cases be dealt with justly; that includes acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty, dealing with the prosecution and the defence fairly, respecting the interests of witnesses, dealing with the case efficiently and expeditiously, and also, of great importance, dealing with the case in a way that takes into account the gravity of the offence, the complexity of what is in issue, the severity of the consequences to the defendant and others affected and the needs of other cases. Rule 1.2 imposes upon the duty of participants in a criminal case to prepare and conduct the case in accordance with the overriding objective, to comply with the rules and, importantly, to inform the court and all parties of any significant failure, whether or not the participant is responsible for that failure, to take any procedural step required by the rules.
Rule 3.2 imposes upon the court a duty to further that overriding objective by actively managing the case.
The pertinent part relevant to what happened in this case is the early identification of the real issues. It is, it seems to us, clear that what should have happened is that at the first hearing of a case of this kind, after the entry of the plea of not guilty, the defendant should have been asked first what was in issue. At that stage and at the first hearing, he should then have been asked what witnesses did he need. Quite apart from the question that has arisen in relation to the analyst’s certificate, we simply have no idea why three police officers (who could have been much better employed in protecting the public by being available to do their duty on the beat or elsewhere) were called to court. On what appears before us, their attendance was a complete waste of time and money as the evidence was irrelevant to the issues. Mr Forrest should, thirdly, have been asked what issues were taken by the defence. In our experience, it is very rare in a court, when such a question is asked, that parties do not reply. Most people approach a case on the basis that they want justice done as they wish to be acquitted if they are innocent; it is our experience that the case where a defendant refuses to identify the issue is rare indeed. If a defendant refuses to identify what the issues are, one thing is clear: he can derive no advantage from that or seek, as appears to have happened in this case, to attempt an ambush at trial. The days of ambushing and taking last-minute technical points are gone. They are not consistent with the overriding objective of deciding cases justly, acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty.’
Thomas LJ, McCombe J
[2006] EWHC 1795 (Admin)
Road Traffic Act 1988 7 9, Criminal Procedure Rules 1.2
Cited – Wings Ltd v Ellis QBD 1984
Mann J said: ‘The most that could be said for the respondent is that the members of this class [those ruling the company], although establishing a system, failed to establish a system which would have prevented the mistake which occurred. That . .
Cited – Sunworld Limited v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Newell, Regina v CACD 30-Mar-2012
The appellant challenged the introduction in evidence of a previous inconsistent statement lodged on his behalf by counsel on a Plea and Case Management Form at a directions hearing.
Held: The appeal was allowed. An advocate plainly has . .
Cited – James v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 13-Nov-2015
The appellant challenged her conviction for failing to comply with conditions imposed on a public demonstration. Her demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice had brought traffic to a standstill. At trial she had been refused permission to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243377
[2006] EWCA Civ 974
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243359
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor should have put in evidence the results of the roadside breath test. Mitting J referred to the case of Badkin: ‘But nothing in the judgment of Glidewell LJ leads to the conclusion that in every case the prosecution must obtain from the manufacturers an analysis of the proportion of alcohol in the specimen provided in the roadside breath test and put that result in evidence. That conclusion, I believe at least tentatively, is reinforced by the current wording of Section 6 and 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003), which refers respectively to ‘preliminary tests’ at the roadside, and ‘specimens of breath for analysis’ in the police station or hospital. Only the latter need be put in evidence.’
Maurice Kay LJ, Mitting J
[2006] EWHC 1753 (Admin)
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998 15(2)
England and Wales
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
Cited – Badkin v Director of Public Prosecutions 1988
The defendant driver had provided two specimens of breath at the police station. The device used failed to provide a printout and the constable operating it decided that it could be unreliable. He required the defendant to provide a specimen of . .
Cited – Breckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . .
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.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243308
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 was required under the 1986 Act.
Held: Whether there was anybody who might be prosecuted for leading a ride taking place without an order would be a matter for the police in each case. The court could not anticipate that. Nor could it be said that the purpose of the ride was not one governed by the 1986 Act. It was suggested that the procession had acquired the status of being a customary procession, however: ‘the denial of a collective intention falling within s.11(1) may not be easy to reconcile with the continuity of qualifying intention needed to attract the protection of s.11(2). Either will afford a defence, but it is hard to see how both can. ‘ There had now been 140 such rides, and it was not proper to deny that they had become common or customary, and no notice was required.
Sedley LJ contrasted the control powers in ss12 and 13, applying to any procession, notifiable or not, if the circumstances indicated a material threat of disorder or intimidation, with the purpose of s11 which was to permit the policing of processions, whether or not they posed such a threat.
Sedley LJ, Gray J
[2006] EWHC 1536 (Admin), Times 30-Jun-2006, [2006] Po LR 111, [2006] RTR 39, [2006] ACD 86
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 . .
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 . .
At First Instance – 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 . .
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.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242879
The appellant had been seen to hit another car while parking in a Sainsbury’s car park, and to have driven off. She appealed her conviction for driving without due care and attention and of failing to report the accident. The court admitted as evidence a log of the report of the incident to the police. The defendant said that was hearsay evidence which should not have been admitted.
Held: ‘hearsay is inadmissible unless it can be brought within an exception defined in the legislation. ‘ The log was multiple hearsay being a record of what was said to the police operative of what was hearsay to the car owner. The magistrates had admitted the log as a business document. The test was whether the car owner’ had personal knowledge of the matter reported. They did not. The evidence should however have been admitted on other grounds under 114(2)
Scott Baker LJ, Leveson J
[2006] EWHC 1271 (Admin)
Criminal Justice Act 2003 114-136
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242299
Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Justice Laws Sir Martin Nourse
[2006] EWCA Civ 410
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241400
The court discussed the criminal liability imposed for dangerous heavy goods vehicles: ‘I think that the general principle that these offences are absolute offences has to be applied here and I think that, in deciding whether the condition of the load is such that danger is or is likely to be caused, it must be determined according to the factual circumstances as they were, regardless of the knowledge of the defendant.’
Lord Widgery CJ
[1975] RTR 292
England and Wales
Cited – Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, Regina (on the Application of) v Henderson Admn 15-Dec-2004
The prosecutor appealed a decision of the magistrates not to convict a lorry driver. He had stopped after feeling vibration. At the service station he had taken off and replaced the wheel nuts by hand, and was awaiting service. The vehicle inspector . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.226971
The MIB appealed against a determination that EU Directive 2009/103/EC relating to compulsory motor insurance had direct effect against the MIB as an emanation of the state, so that the MIB was liable to indemnify the respondent claimant (to whom I will refer as ‘the claimant’) in respect of the injury he suffered an incident with an uninsured driver. MIB had argued that the injury was not on a road or other public place.
Held: The appeal failed. Though a private body, the MIB had had delegated to it the duty placed on the state of complying with the European Directive.
[2019] EWCA Civ 909
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.637984
The bankrupt had been entitled to a valuable vehicle registration mark ‘AMR 1T’. He sold it to a creditor, the claimant to clear that debt. The trustee now said that the purported assignment was ineffective.
Held: ‘VRMs are assigned to vehicles, not to registered owners or other individuals. The Secretary of State has power to assign or re-assign a VRM under Section 23(2) but a vehicle owner cannot require him to do so. The only relevant right which a vehicle owner has in relation to the transfer of a VRM from one vehicle to another is to seek the exercise in his favour of the Secretary of State’s power under Section 26. ‘ The right was not a chose in action capable of assignment. Had he been entitled to the VRM, any assignment would have been an unlawful preference.
Sir Francis Ferris
[2006] EWHC 833 (Ch), Times 28-Jun-2006
Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 23 26, Insolvency Act 1986 340(3)
England and Wales
Distinguished – In re Fry ChD 1946
A settlor executed a transfer of shares but failed to obtain the consent of the Treasury under the Regulations. The transferees argued that the testator had executed documents which were appropriate to the subject matter of the gift, namely the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240438
The claimant asked for judicial review of a decision to adjourn the case against him on a charge of driving with excess alcohol. The district judge had already insisted on the date fixed for the hearing as against the defendant, but then adjourned when prosecution witnesses did not appear. The court did not allow defence counsel to finish addressing them before adjourning.
Held: the court expressed considerable surprise that both the magistartes and the CPS were represented by the same counsel. The magistrates adjourned on that basis that the defence was at fault when they were not, and therefore the magistrates failed to consider the consequences to the defendant in costs. In any event the prosecutions analyst had failed to attend a second time. ‘The prosecution in reality was being given a leeway denied to the defence with no certain prospects of costs redress.’ In the circumstances the proceedings were stayed permanently.
Ousely J
[2006] EWHC 566 (Admin)
Cited – Essen v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-May-2005
. .
Cited – Regina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia) Admn 10-Feb-1997
The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240063
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that though the officers suspected him of having consumed alcohol, they asked him whether he had been drinking without cautioning him, and that no print out from the Intoximeter having been produced, there was no evidence on which he could be convicted. The officer gave evidence not of his reading of the Intoximeter but of the print out.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Drinking itself is not a criminal offence. At the point when the officer asked him whether he had been drinking paragraphs 10 and 11 of the PACE code were not engaged. The fact that he had been drinking allowed the officer then to require the breath test. As to the complaint about the admission of the officer’s evidence in the absence of the printout: ‘oral evidence was given by the officer who carried out the procedure, evidence which was supported by the other officer who was present throughout. There was no challenge to that evidence in cross-examination. No objection was taken to its admissibility at the time and no challenge, indeed, to its correctness.’
Richards LJ said of the arguments advanced for the appellant: ‘In conclusion, I am satisfied that the there is no merit in the arguments advanced by Miss Calder in relation to the justices’ findings concerning the breath test procedure. Fortunately the justices were not misled by such arguments but dealt with the case sensibly and robustly, making findings properly open to them on the unchallenged evidence they had heard.’
Richards LJ, David Clarke J
[2006] EWHC 560 (Admin)
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
See Also – Sneyd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Jul-2005
The defendant wished to argue a point to overturn the decision in Chesters. Accordingly the matter was adjourned for hearing by a two judge court. . .
Cited – Owen v Chesters 1985
The court considered the means of proving the reading from a breath test meter: ‘It was clearly the intention of the legislature, in enacting subsection (5), that the defendant should be provided in advance of the hearing with the information . .
Cited – Thom v Director of Public Prosecutions 1993
The defendant was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. No print-out was produced but there was oral evidence from the officers who carried out the procedure that the machine was calibrated properly and working properly and what the readings . .
Cited – Denneny v Harding 1986
Although a police officer was able to give evidence about what he saw on the Intoximeter display panel, the evidence of the officer in the case went no further than the evidence of the readings of alcohol in the appellant’s breath. In order to prove . .
Cited – Mayon v Director of Public Prosecutions 1988
In the absence of evidence of calibration of an Intoximeter either before or after the second specimen was produced, there had been a failure to prove the precondition that the machine was working satisfactorily. . .
Cited – Greenway v Director of Public Prosecutions 1993
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The officer had given evidence that at the time of the test all of the readings showed that the machine was working properly. That evidence was not challenged by the . .
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.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240062
[2005] EWHC 3234 (Admin)
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239264
The defendant sought judicial review of the refusal by the magistrates to state a case. He was convicted for failing to identify the driver of a motor cycle of which he was a registered keeper which had been caught by a speed camera. Either of two riders might have been using it.
Held: Having failed to identify the driver he had to bring himself within section 172(4) to establish that he was unable to do so despite due diligence. The information provided was inaccurate and misleading: ‘it is clear that the claimant did not believe that he was the driver and knew that the only other possibility was Dr Sepp. It seems to me to be a clear inference that he believed that the driver was Dr Sepp and that his state of mind in relation to the identity of the driver was as close to knowledge as anybody who has not been present at the place of the offence can come. The fact that Dr Sepp did not believe that he (Dr Sepp) had been the driver was neither here nor there. ‘ The position was clear, and the request for a judicial review failed.
Richards LJ, David Clarke J
[2006] EWHC 396 (Admin)
Road Traffic Act 1988 172(3) 172(4)
England and Wales
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Thornley Admn 3-Feb-2006
The prosecution appealed dismissal of an allegation of speeding. The defendant had argued that the prosecution had not served the required evidence. The prosecution sought to rely upon the evidence of the officer.
Held: The provisions of . .
Cited – Hawkes v Director of Public Prosecutions CACD 2-Nov-2005
The defendant appealed her convictions for assaulting a police officer and obstructing him in the course of his duty. She had acted in an abusive manner, but there had been no violence.
Held: Whilst she might have been arrested on the basis . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Glendinning Admn 13-Oct-2005
The defendant had been accused of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty by warning motorists of presence of a police speed trap. The prosecutor appealed from dismissal of the charge.
Held: ‘the hand signals given by the . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Mukandiwa QBD 21-Oct-2005
The defendant was asked to give a sample of blood. He declined, saying that the sight of blood drove him into a trance in which state he was liable to be violent. The Director appealed the finding that this was a proper excuse as a health concern. . .
Cited – Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 20-Oct-2000
Where magistrates considered an offence for which a driving ban was discretionary, they were entitled at that stage to take account of the driving record, even though they knew they would have to take that same record into account when considering a . .
Cited – Cox, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 25-Oct-2005
. .
Cited – Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2004
The defendant was the registered keeper of a vehicle recorded as having exceeded the speed limit. He was required to identify the driver. He responded saying that it was one of six fleet vehicles and could not say who was driving it at the time. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239255
[2006] EWHC 314 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239150
The two claimants sought title to a car registration plate and to a chassis number. They were to be applied to historic racing cars.
Held: The power to assign registration marks lay with the Secretary of State. Any legal rights rested not with a car but with a legal person, which a car is not. Courts ought to be careful before investing time on such matters. The power of the Court to make declarations is unfettered by statute or the CPR, but the power should not be exercised in this case. Both claim and counterclaim were dismissed.
Stanley Burnton J
[2006] EWHC 315 (QB)
Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1955, Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1964, Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971, Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994
England and Wales
Cited – Financial Services Authority v Rourke ChD 19-Oct-2001
The applicant sought a declaration that the defendant had acted in breach of the Act, in accepting sums by way of deposit, without being authorised, and had made prohibited statements to attract such deposits. Could a civil court make such a finding . .
Cited – Hubbard v Middlebridge Scimitar Ltd 27-Jul-1990
The plaintiff had contracted to sell a vintage Bentley racing car ‘Old Number One’ for andpound;10 million pounds. The buyer came to suspect its authenticity and refused to complete. The plaintiff sought specific performance.
Held: During the . .
Cited – Bumper Development Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1991
An Indian temple having a legal persona recognised in India may assert rights and make claims under English Law. Even though it would not be recognised as a litigant if based in England and Wales, it was nonetheless entitled, in accordance with the . .
See Also – Lloyd v Svenby QBD 21-Mar-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238737
The respondent, was a passenger in a motor car who was injured in an accident. He raised an action of damages against the driver, the appellant, who had been convicted of an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1972. The men had been drinking together in public houses for most of the day and when the respondent entered the appellant’s car to return home, he knew that the appellant was drunk. The appellant contended that he was not liable in damages to the respondent inter alia because the respondent had voluntarily accepted the risk of an accident.
Held: After reviewing the Scotish cases: including McCaig v Langan and Fowler v Tierney: ‘From these expressions of view as to what is involved in the maxim so far as the law of Scotland is concerned, I can find no support for, but rather refutation of, the contention that its effect here is to establish that on this journey there never was any duty on the defender as the driver of the car to take reasonable care quoad the pursuer […]. In my opinion the effect of the maxim was not to relieve the defender from any duty to take care quoad his passengers. On the contrary the maxim proceeds on the basis that there is duty to take care and not be negligent, but the successful establishment of the maxim means that the pursuer has accepted the risk of the defender’s negligence in the exercise of his legal duties and has absolved the defender from the consequences arising from that negligence.’
Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Wheatley
1984 SLT 185
Scotland
Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.226757
May LJ said: ‘Caparo and Murphy v Brentford were both cases concerning economic loss, not physical damage, but the principle is the same for each. The question is whether the relationship between the claimant and the defendant is such that it imposes on the latter a duty to take care to avoid or prevent the loss which has in fact been sustained. That question subsumes the question whether the acts or omissions of the defendant cause the damage relied on. If they do not there is no negligence’
May LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 1452
England and Wales
Cited – Macleod (By His Deputy and Litigation Friend, Macleod) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 3-Apr-2014
The claimant sought damages after being severely injured when knocked from his cycle by police officers in a car attending an emergency, and driving over the speed limit.
Held: The claim succeeded, and there had been no contributory negligence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236372
The Honourable Mr Justice Owen
[2005] EWHC 2669 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235888
The defendant had successfully appealed her fine after giving the wrong car number to the congestion charge system.
Held: When the driver appealed to the adjudicator’s discretion, she could submit anything which might be relevant. Where the appeal was directed specifically at provisions of the regulations, the adjudicator could only look to see whether the appeal brought itself within the grounds set out. On that basis the adjudicator’s appeal succeeded.
Chadwick, Sedley, Keene LJJ
Times 28-Nov-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 1540
England and Wales
Cited – Walmsley, Regina (on the Application Of) v Lane and Another Admn 18-May-2005
The applicant had paid the congestion charge to allow her to drive into London, but had given the incorrect registration mark.
Held: The mistake was not a mistke which would establish a ground to challenge the penalty, but the adjudicator had . .
Cited – Regina (Westminster City Council) v Parking Adjudicator Admn 22-May-2002
The adjudicator sought, when deciding an appeal against a parking penalty, to take account of the applicant’s mitigating circumstances. He had reduced the penalty to zero.
Held: The reference to a discretion allowed where ‘the penalty charge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235407
The claimant sought a license to allow him to use motor-bikes as private hire vehicles. The council had refused a licence saying that they were not safe. He claimed that since they were safe to be on the road, they should be licensed.
Held: The Act imposed two requirements for safety. The vehicle itself should be safe, and it should in addition be safe to be used as a private hire vehicle.
Keene LJ, Poole J
Times 12-Oct-2005, [2005] EWHC 2369 (Admin)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984 48
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231463
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom of movement for workers – Motor vehicles – Making available to the employee by the employer – Vehicle registered in the Member State of the employer – Employee resident in another Member State – Taxation of the motor vehicle.
C-464/02, [2005] EUECJ C-464/02
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230040
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations ? Directive 91/439/EEC ? Driving licences – Minimum age requirement to drive certain vehicles – Possibility of driving vehicles in a category other than the one for which a driving licence has been issued – Compulsory registration and exchange of driving licences.
C-372/03, [2005] EUECJ C-372/03
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230041
The defendant wished to argue a point to overturn the decision in Chesters. Accordingly the matter was adjourned for hearing by a two judge court.
Walker J
[2005] EWHC 1781 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Owen v Chesters 1985
The court considered the means of proving the reading from a breath test meter: ‘It was clearly the intention of the legislature, in enacting subsection (5), that the defendant should be provided in advance of the hearing with the information . .
See Also – Sneyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 24-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that though the officers suspected him of having consumed alcohol, they asked him whether he had been drinking without cautioning him, and that no print out . .
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.
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229744
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 its driver.
Held: The offence involved use by the employer when he caused or mermitted the use. It was in effect a joint enterprise by the employer and employee.
Kennedy LJ, Walker J
[2005] EWHC 1627 (Admin)
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
England and Wales
Cited – Alphacell Ltd v Woodward HL 3-May-1972
The defendant operated a paper manufacturing plant which involved maintaining tanks of polluting liquid near the river, so that pollution would occur if they overflowed. There were pumps which ought normally to have drawn off the liquid and . .
Cited – Ross Hillman v Bond 1974
An employer can be found to be causing or permitting an employee to overload a vehicle when he was acting in the course of his employment even though the employer is unaware of the employee’s exact activities. . .
Cited – West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service v Lex Vehicle Leasing Ltd QBD 9-Feb-1995
It was alleged that the maximum permitted front axle weight of the vehicle in question was exceeded. The court was asked what were the circimstances defing a ‘user’ of a motor vehicle in prosecutions for use of the vehicle.
Held: ‘The . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Jones CA 2000
A company Managing Director had arranged for a dockside crane to be adapted, so that with the jaws of the grab bucket open bags could be attached to hooks fitted within the bucket. Jones was in the hold of a ship loading bags onto the hooks when the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229011
The defendant appealed conviction involving allegations that he was driving. He was sat at the wheel of a vehicle being towed by means of a rigid steel bar. He denied that he was driving, but had both steered and braked.
Held: The magistrates had been entitled to find that he had been driving, having had control, if only partial, of the vehicle. The prosecutor had, after the magistrates retired, asked them to return to allow him to add further evidence as to the defendant’s continued disqualification pending taking an exteded driving test. ‘It is also still very clearly the law in the Crown Court . . that once a jury have been sent out to consider their verdict, no evidence may be called, and the rule is very strictly enforced . . the justices were not entitled to allow the prosecution to adduce the further evidence after they had retired to consider their verdict. ‘ The appeal succeeded.
Bean J
[2005] EWHC 1482 (Admin)
Road Traffic Act 1988 103(1)(b) 143
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v MacDonagh CA 1974
The Road Traffic Acts do not define the word ‘drive’ and in its simplest meaning it refers to a person using the driver’s controls for the purpose of directing the movement of the vehicle. It matters not that the vehicle is not moving under its own . .
Cited – Webb v Leadbetter QBD 1966
One of two witnesses whom the prosecution desired to call at the hearing of an information had not arrived. The available witness was called. The prosecution case closed. The defendant gave evidence and his case closed. The justices had retired to . .
Cited – Christopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn 31-Mar-2000
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . .
Cited – Tuck v Vehicle Inspectorate Admn 24-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed a conviction for exceeding the gross permitted weight on a goods vehicle. The magistrates having heard the case, the defendant submitted there was no case to answer, the prosecution having failed to bring evidence as to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228906
[2005] EWHC 1395 (Admin)
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228891
The magistrates stated a case where the police officer requiring a breath speciment, had not allowed a wait of 20 minutes where the defendant had recently eaten a ‘tic-tac’, contrary to the procedure.
Kennedy LJ, Crane J
[2005] EWHC 1533 (Admin)
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
England and Wales
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v John Kay QBD 4-Mar-1998
The court considered a decision by Justices to exclude evidence under section 8 of the 1984 Act where a police officer had allegedly failed to follow the guidance in relation to a roadside breath test.
Held: The procedure was not required by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228893
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the device used to measure his breath at the police station, the EC/IR intoximeter, was not an approved device. The court had refused to accept evidence to support such an assertion.
Held: The magistrates had found that the appellant had been lawfully required to give the specimen of breath. There is no requirement on the prosecution to prove that the device remained of a type approved by the Secretary of State and was not so modified as to cease to be of a type so approved before convicting a driver on evidence provided by the test of a blood specimen provided voluntarily by him under section 8(2).
Brooke LJ, Mitting J
[2005] EWHC 1211 (Admin)
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 – Director of Public Prosecutions v Jackson, Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 29-Jul-1998
When requesting a drink driver suspect to give a specimen of blood, an officer’s failure to say that the specimen will be taken by a doctor was not fatal to the prosecution. The issue of whether the blood sample was to be taken had properly been . .
Cited – Fox v Chief Constable of Gwent HL 1986
The driver left an accident. The police entered his home unlawfully, and on his refusal to supply a breath test, he was arrested and charged with faiing to supply.
Held: A lawful arrest is not an essential requirement before a breath test, and . .
Cited – Prince v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1996
The appellant had convicted of an offence under s5 on the basis of evidence provided by a laboratory test of a blood sample provided under section 8(2). In each case it was contended that the prosecution were required to prove that the intoximeter . .
Cited – Branagan v The Director of Public Prosecutions 2000
The defendant appealed against his conviction of driving with excess alcohol, on the basis of a blood sample. He said that it was a requirement that the intoximeter should be shown to be working properly before the evidence of the blood sample was . .
Cited – Murray v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 4-Feb-1993
The defendant claimed that a breathalyser procedure mistake vitiated the subsequent prosecution.
Held: It was essential that the motorist who was asked to provide a sample of breath be first warned that a failure to provide a specimen would . .
Cited – Thompson v Thynne 1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227058
The defendant had been convicted of speeding. At the time the road was thought to be subject to the 30 mph limit but was in fact subject only to the national speed limit. Her solicitors had delayed their application for judicial review.
Held: ‘Where an unjust sentence has been imposed upon a claimant, then, notwithstanding the very long period of delay that has elapsed since she learnt about it, it would, in my view, be unjust to deprive her of relief on that ground alone. ‘ She would however have still been subject to prosecution for traveling in excess of the national speed limit. The sentence was quashed and the matter remitted to the magistrates for recitification and re-sentence.
[2004] EWHC 2456 (Admin)
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 81(1) 89(1), Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142(1)
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226905
The defendant was the registered keeper of a vehicle recorded as having exceeded the speed limit. He was required to identify the driver. He responded saying that it was one of six fleet vehicles and could not say who was driving it at the time. He appealed his conviction.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The letter accompanying and information cross referenced from the letter provided all the information requested. However the form required him to name the driver, and that he had not done. He could not however do so: ‘this conviction was, in large measure, based on an erroneous judgment as to the matter of the form and that, in those circumstances, it seems to me only right that this appeal should be allowed. The matter should be returned to the deputy district judge with a direction to acquit. ‘
May LJ, Nelson J
[2004] EWHC 236 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Boss v Measures QBD 1990
The defendant was prosecuted for having failed to provide information on a form when he had responded by telephone. . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Broomfield QBD 2002
If a notice is in reasonable form and requires the information to be given in a particular form then that form must be used. A purpose of seeking the information in section 172 of the 1988 Act was to enable proof of certain matters, including the . .
Cited – Flegg v Justices of the Peace for the New Forest Local Justice Area Sitting at Lyndhurst Admn 21-Feb-2006
The defendant sought judicial review of the refusal by the magistrates to state a case. He was convicted for failing to identify the driver of a motor cycle of which he was a registered keeper which had been caught by a speed camera. Either of two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226859
Absence of caution from form requesting information form driver.
[2004] EWHC 277 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Mawdesley and Yorke v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary and Another Admn 31-Jul-2003
The two appellant drivers had been sent forms requiring them to identify the drivers of vehicles identified by speed cameras. They had replied providing the requested information, but the forms were unsigned. They resisted use of the forms as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.224359
The Claimant, a resident of the London Borough of Barnet, applied for judicial review of the decision of the Defendant to increase the charges for residents’ parking permits and visitor vouchers in Controlled Parking Zones in the Borough.
Lang DBE J
[2013] EWHC 2089 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 303
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.513542
Jack J
[2010] EWHC 3171 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.426916
The defendant appealed against his conviction for speeding on an appeal to the crown court. He said that he had not received the notice of intended prosecution as required within fourteen days.
Held: The Act shifted the burden of proof of late delivery onto the defendant. The letter by had been sent ordinary first-class post in a time of postal strikes. The passage in Archbold on which the judge had relied was misleading. The irrebuttable presumption applied only to letters sent by registered or recorded post, and not to letters sent first class. In times of postal disruption, the police authorities must adapt their practice, or Parliament must change the statute.
Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Openshaw
Times 10-Nov-2009
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 1(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.377808
The applicant had paid the congestion charge to allow her to drive into London, but had given the incorrect registration mark.
Held: The mistake was not a mistke which would establish a ground to challenge the penalty, but the adjudicator had been wrong to consider that he had no discretion to accept the circumstance as mitigation. He did have that discretion, and should have exercised it. The scheme was not clear, and its meaning could only be derived by anticipating what might have been wanted. The case did not give grounds for saying that the same result would always obtain, particularly in the case of repeated errors. If Transport for London had a policy for the exercise of the discretion, it was right that those who might be affected by it should know of it.
Burnton J
[2005] EWHC 896 (Admin), Times 25-May-2005, [2005] RTR 370
Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Order 2001
England and Wales
Cited – Walmsley, Regina (on the Application of) v Lane and Another CA 17-Nov-2005
The defendant had successfully appealed her fine after giving the wrong car number to the congestion charge system.
Held: When the driver appealed to the adjudicator’s discretion, she could submit anything which might be relevant. Where the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224949
The defendant appealed against his conviction for causing death by dangerous driving.
Sir Anthony May P QBD, Langsatff, Wyn Williams JJ
[2009] EWCA Crim 2677, [2010] RTR 17
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.430816
The claimant appealed dismissal of her claim for damages for serious personal injury suffered by her as a child. She had walked out in front of a car. In poor visibility, and with dark clothing, the defendant may not have had opportunity to avoid her.
Held: There was no strong evidence as to her behaviour. She was found not to have stopped at the kerb. It was a counsel of perfection, to say the defendant ought to have seen and reacted at the very split second that she stepped off the kerb. Even if he ought to have seen her, he would not have had opportunity to stop. There was no basis for a finding of negligence.
Lord Justice Ward, And, Lord Justice Longmore
[2002] EWCA Civ 162
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167642
Appeal from conviction for offence of using on a road a goods vehicle for hire or reward, without an operator’s licence
[2019] EWHC 718 (Admin)
Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 2(5)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.635252
The defendant drivers appealed against convictions for speeding, saying that the speed signs did not have the correct width of black border.
Held: The appeals failed. The signs were in casings the lip of which did not form a background which would have brought into play the requirement to have the border. The signs complied with the regulations.
Sir Igor Judge P, Lloyd Jones J
Times 12-Mar-2007, [2007] EWHC 383 (Admin)
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (2002 No 3113)
England and Wales
Cited – 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.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.263792
The claimant sought damages after a road traffic accident. The judge heard evidence from the claimant’s in person and from a conflicting expert’s report. He preferred the evidence of the claimants which he found to be blameless and honest. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no rule requiring the court to accept an expert’s evidence over that of a lay witness. Our system is one of trial by judge, not by expert witness. The judge had been open and clear as to why he made his findings.
Brooke VP CA, Arden, Longmore LJJ
Times 19-Jan-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 277, [2005] 1 WLR 2751
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223680
Traffic regulation scheme.
Held: In consulting about an increase in airport capacity in South East England, the government had acted unlawfully in consulting upon possible development only at Heathrow, Stansted and the Thames estuary and not also at Gatwick.
[2005] EWHC 16 (Admin), [2006] LGR 304
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222030
[2003] EWCA Civ 414
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.181141
Appeal against a decision refusing Mr Cummings judicial review of a decision of the Cardiff County Council to remove the restriction on the number of hackney carriage licences in Cardiff.
Lord Justice Buxton Master of the Rolls (Lord Phillips) Lord Justice Scott Baker
[2005] EWCA Civ 1061
England and Wales
Appeal From – Cummings v Cardiff County Council Admn 27-Oct-2004
Licensing of taxis – removal of limit on hackney carriage licences destroying value of existing licences. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.229727
