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.
Judges:
Walker J
Citations:
Times 29-Dec-2006, [2006] EWHC 3263 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 81(1) 85 89(1)
Citing:
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 by:
Cited – Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 27-Jan-2011
The driver appealed against his conviction for exceeding the relevant maximum speed on a Special Road, the A55 in North Wales. The speed limit signs were designed to be illuminated, but the lamps were not working. Instructions had been given not to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249160
