The defendant was accused of being drunk in charge of a carriage. He was in fact riding a cycle. Section 12 made it an offence to be ‘drunk while in charge on any highway . . of any carriage, horse, cattle, or steam engine’.
Held: The Act was to be read purposively. The mischief rule allowed the court to hold that a carriage included a bicycle.
Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘for this purpose there cannot be any distinction between a section in a highway statute passed for the protection of the public and a section in a licensing statute passed for the same purpose, both of them concerning the conduct of a person on the highway and the preservation of public order.’ and ‘a bicycle is a carriage . . It is a carriage in my opinion because it carries.’
Lord Goddard CJ, Hilbery, Byrne JJ
[1950] 2 All ER 745, [1951] 1 KB 102
Licensing Act 1872 12
England and Wales
Citing:
Determinative – Taylor v Goodwin QBD 1879
The court was asked whether a bicycle was a ‘carriage’ within the meaning of section 78. It was said to have been ‘ridden at a furious pace’. The appellant argued that: ‘A bicycle is not a ‘carriage’ within the meaning of the Act, nor can it be said . .
Cited by:
Cited – Coates v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 29-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for driving a Segway scooter on a footpath. He denied that it was ‘a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads.’
Held: The appeal failed. The district judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.200601
