swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Road Traffic - From: 1995 To: 1995
This page lists 35 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Small v Director of Public Prosecutions [1995] RTR 95
1995
Road Traffic
The expressions "permissible maximum weight" and "maximum permissible weight" are interchangeable.
1 Citers
Regina v Strong [1995] Crim LR 428
1995
Crime, Road Traffic
"obvious to a careful and competent driver" refers to a dangerous state which would be "seen or realised at first glance"
Road Traffic Act 1988 2A
1 Citers
Whelehan v Director of Public Prosecution [1995] RTR 177
1995
Road Traffic, Magistrates
A police officer saw a motorist, the appellant, sitting in the driver's seat of a car with keys in the ignition in the early hours of the morning, and smelt alcohol on his breath. The conversation which then took place between the officer and the offender was not under caution. The magistrates found it not to have been in breach of the Code of Practice. Held: The finding was upheld by the Divisional Court.
1 Citers
Stinton v Stinton and Another; CA 5-Jan-1995 - Gazette, 05 January 1995; Times, 23 November 1994
Regina v Camden London Borough Council Ex Parte Cran and Others Times, 25 January 1995; Ind Summary, 20 March 1995; (1996) 94 LGR 8
25 Jan 1995
QBD
McCullough J
Road Traffic, Local Government
A designation of an area as a controlled parking area was vitiated by the failure of the Local Authority to consult locally. The court expanded on the principles for consultation set out in Gunning: 'What kind and amount of consultation is required in a particular case must depend on the circumstances. A few general principles can however, be stated.
'The process of consultation must be effective; looked at as a whole, it must be fair. This requires that: consultation must take place while the proposals are still at a formative stage; those consulted must be provided with information which is accurate and sufficient to enable them to make a meaningful response; they must be given adequate time in which to do so; there must be adequate time for their responses to be considered; the consulting party must consider responses with a receptive mind and a conscientious manner when reaching its decision.'
European Convention on Human Rights 9
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Beckford; CA 27-Jan-1995 - Times, 27 January 1995; [1996] 1 Cr App R 94
Director of Public Prosecutions v Garrett Times, 03 February 1995
3 Feb 1995
QBD
Road Traffic
A properly taken urine sample was admissible despite an earlier request for a blood sample.
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
Scott and Another v Westminster City Council Times, 07 February 1995
7 Feb 1995
CA
Road Traffic
A hot chestnut brazier was article 'deposited on highway' and was removable by a police constable.
Highways Act 1980 149
West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service v Lex Vehicle Leasing Ltd [1996] RTR 70
9 Feb 1995
QBD
Dyson J
Road Traffic
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 so-called narrow approach to the meaning of the word 'use' or 'uses' where it is found in criminal statutes in conjunction with the alternatives of 'causes or permits,' has a long pedigree."
. . and "Thus the line has been clearly and consistently drawn by this court. A person is a user only if he is the driver or the owner of the vehicle, but it applies to the owner only if the driver is employed by the owner under a contract of service and at the material time he is driving on his employer's business. The line has been described variously as not wholly logical and as somewhat artificial, but it has been drawn by this court after due consideration has been given to those criticisms, to some extent, for pragmatic reasons and to avoid confusion."
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986
1 Cites
1 Citers
Wade v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 14 February 1995; (1996) RTR 177
14 Feb 1995
QBD
Road Traffic
The Police Constable had failed to enquire further on the issue of 'taking tablets' as a medical reason for refusing to give a breath test. The prosecution failed.
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)
1 Citers
Director of Public Prosecutions v Enston Times, 17 February 1995
17 Feb 1995
QBD
Road Traffic
The defendant drove, after a threat of a false accusation of rape being made against him. Nevertheless, his conviction was correct. This was not sufficient to establish the defence of duress.
Scott and Another v Westminster Cc Gazette, 22 February 1995
22 Feb 1995
CA
Road Traffic
'Deposited on highway' has wide meaning - includes vending barrows.
Highways Act 1980 149
Scott and Another v Westminster City Council; CA 20-Mar-1995 - Ind Summary, 20 March 1995; [1995] RTR 32
Carey v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Independent, 20 April 1995; Times, 07 April 1995
7 Apr 1995
CA
Road Traffic
A vehicle must obstruct persons using the road, not just the road itself, before it can be removed under the Regulations. 'Obstruction' is relative to the users of the highway, not to the occupation of the highway itself.
Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 (1986 No 183) 3(1)
Regina v Millington; CACD 12-May-1995 - Times, 12 May 1995
Regina v Aworinde; CACD 15-May-1995 - Ind Summary, 15 May 1995
Regina v Pydar Justices Ex Parte Foster Times, 23 May 1995; Ind Summary, 12 June 1995; [1995] 160 JP 87
23 May 1995
QBD
Curtis J
Road Traffic, Criminal Practice, Magistrates
There was a case to answer on an OPL charge despite the computer readout not being handed to Justices. It was in evidence. Evidence referred to but not challenged by the defendant can be relied upon by Justices in making their decision. The court commented on a suggestion that a defending advocate was entitled to "keep his powder dry": "Mr Burkett [who was the applicant] submitted that the solicitor concerned was entitled to sit quiet and not alert the justices to the error the defendant claims existed on the form, but make a submission about it to them later at a time of his choosing. I profoundly disagree with this thoroughly bad submission. Without any doubt whatsoever, it is the duty of a defending advocate properly to lay the ground for a submission, either by cross-examination or, if appropriate, by calling evidence."
1 Citers
Director of Public Prosecutions v Whittle Ind Summary, 05 June 1995; [1996] RTA 154
5 Jun 1995
QBD
Road Traffic
Medical emergency to be treated as defence of duress rather than special reason.
1 Citers
Pumbien v Vines Times, 14 June 1995
14 Jun 1995
QBD
Road Traffic
A car on left on the road is used for MOT and insurance purposes even though it might be immobilized.
Smyth v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 21 June 1995
21 Jun 1995
QBD
Road Traffic
Driver refusing then agreeing in 5 seconds to breath test didn't refuse.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7
TNT Express (Uk) Ltd v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council Ind Summary, 24 July 1995; Times, 27 June 1995
27 Jun 1995
QBD
Road Traffic
Compliance with licence condition to go by the shortest route was not to be tested by commercial costs or considerations.
Greater London (Restrictions of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985 - Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 6
Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Wilson; QBD 29-Jun-1995 - Times, 25 July 1995; CO 1249-95
Baldwin v West Yorkshire Police, orse Baldwin v Director of Public Prosecutions; QBD 3-Jul-1995 - Ind Summary, 03 July 1995; [1996] RTR 238
Ashton v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 14 July 1995
14 Jul 1995
QBD
Road Traffic
Challenge to Intoximeter reading including acetone reading to be under s 78.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 69(1) 78
Director of Public Prosecutions v Coyle Ind Summary, 17 July 1995; Times, 20 July 1995
17 Jul 1995
QBD
Road Traffic
There was no need for a police officer to warn the defendant of the three minute cycle for the Intoximeter after a test. A failure to warn a motorist of the machine time limit was not good reason for a driver to refuse to give a specimen.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7
Regina v Inner London Justices ex parte Alexander Cukic [1995] EWHC Admin 3; [1995] EWHC Admin 3
1 Sep 1995
Admn
The Lord Chief Justice Of England (Lord Bingham Of Cornhill ) And Mr Justice Cresswell
Magistrates, Road Traffic
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.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6) - Magistrates Courts Act 1980 111(5)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Director of Public Prosecutions v Berry Times, 07 November 1995
7 Nov 1995
QBD
Road Traffic
Blood sample not inadmissible because Defendant unable to comprehend choices for drink.
Road Traffic Act 1988 8
Criminal proceedings against Bird C-235/94; [1995] EUECJ C-235/94
9 Nov 1995
ECJ
Transport, Road Traffic
ECJ (Judgment) Article 12 of Regulation No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport, in the light of its wording and context, does not authorize a driver to derogate from the provisions relating to driving and rest periods in Articles 6, 7 or 8 of the regulation for reasons known before the journey commenced.
It is clear from Article 12 that a decision, taken in order to ensure the safety of persons, of the vehicle and of its load, to extend a driving period beyond that normally authorized under the regulation must be for the driver alone, must be taken when it unexpectedly becomes impossible for him to comply with the driving and rest periods laid down and must take into account the immediate requirements of road safety. Article 15(1), moreover, by requiring transport undertakings to organize work in such a way that drivers are able to comply with the regulation, precludes an undertaking from planning a derogation before the driver leaves.
[ Bailii ]
Hague v Director of Public Prosecutions Ind Summary, 11 December 1995; Times, 14 November 1995
14 Nov 1995
QBD
Road Traffic
A mistaken belief in the mind of the Police Constable that the Intoximeter was inaccurate, does not prevent the admission of the reading.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(3)
East Staffordshire Borough Council v Rendell Ind Summary, 27 November 1995
27 Nov 1995
QBD
Road Traffic
Redirection of calls out of district in which operator's licence held was breach.
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 46-1-d
Director of Public Prosecutions v Berry Ind Summary, 27 November 1995
27 Nov 1995
CACD
Road Traffic
The defendant's non-understanding of breath test procedure when worse for drink was no defence.
Criminal Proceedings Against Bird Times, 29 November 1995
29 Nov 1995
ECJ
Crime, European, Road Traffic
The drivers' rest period derogation was not available where exceptions had been planned and provided for.
Arthur and Another v Anker Times, 01 December 1995; Independent, 07 December 1995; [1997] QB 564
1 Dec 1995
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham, MR, Neill and Hirst LJJ
Torts - Other, Road Traffic
The owners of private land engaged the defendants to prevent unauthorised parking. The defendants erected notices at the entrance to the car park and placed notices around the perimeter in red and white under the prominent heading "Warning" and reading "Wheel clamping and removal of vehicles in operation. Vehicles failing to comply or left without authority will be wheel clamped and a release fee of £40 charged . . Vehicles causing an obstruction or damage or left for an unreasonable length of time may be towed away and held at the company's pound in Truro. A release fee of £90 plus storage costs will be charged. For release contact Armtrack Security". A parked there knowing that he was not entitled to and of stated consequences. His car was clamped, and he claimed for damages for tortious interference. The defendants counterclaimed because A, having refused to pay the £40 fee to have his car de-clamped, returned during the night and succeeded in removing his car together with the two clamps and padlocks that the defendants had used to immobilise his car. The defendants ran two defences to A's action. First that he had consented or alternatively assumed the risk of his car being clamped, so that what would otherwise have been tortious conduct by the defendants was not tortious. Second, that the defendants had seized the car damage feasant. Held: Wheel clamping was not illegal on private land with sufficient notice and a means of payment.
Sir Thomas Bingham, MR said: "The judge held that Mr Arthur parked in full knowledge that he was not entitled to park and of the possible consequences if he did. In those circumstances he was consenting to the consequences and could not thereafter complain of them. The effect of his consent was to render lawful conduct which would otherwise have been tortious."
Sir Thomas Bingham, MR later said: "The judge found that Mr Arthur knew of and consented to the risk of clamping, and counsel for the Arthurs conceded in his written argument on appeal that this was so. But, counsel argued that the demand for payment amounted to blackmail and that the commission of this crime negated the effect of Mr Arthur's consent. I give my reasons below for concluding that Mr Anker's requirement of payment as a condition of de-clamping the vehicle did not amount to blackmail. It is enough at this point to say that by voluntarily accepting the risk that his car might be clamped Mr Arthur also, in my view, accepted the risk that the car would remain clamped until he paid the reasonable cost of clamping and de-clamping. He consented not only to the otherwise tortious act of clamping the car but also to the otherwise tortious action of detaining the car until payment. I would not accept that the clamper could exact any unreasonable or exorbitant charge for releasing the car, and the court would be very slow to find implied acceptance of such a charge. The same would be true if the warning were not of clamping or towing away but of conduct by or on behalf of the land owner which would cause damage to the car. Nor may the clamper justify detention of the car after the owner has indicated willingness to comply with the condition for release: the clamper cannot justify any delay in releasing the car after the owner offers to pay and there must be means for the owner to communicate his offer. But those situations did not arise here. The judge held that the de-clamping fee was reasonable. The contrary has not been argued. In my view the judge was right to hold that Mr Arthur impliedly consented to what occurred and he cannot now complain of it. It follows that I would dismiss the Arthur's appeal against the judge's decision in so far as it rested on consent."
1 Citers
Webber v Director of Public Prosecutions; QBD 20-Dec-1995 - Ind Summary, 01 January 1996; Times, 20 December 1995
Regina v Greenwich London Borough Council, Ex Parte Williams and Others; QBD 29-Dec-1995 - Ind Summary, 29 January 1996; Times, 29 December 1995
