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: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 37 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Branagan v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] RTR 235
2000
Simon Brown LJ
Road Traffic
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 admissible. Held: Simon Brown LJ said: "Assuming that the machine is working properly, clearly it is appropriate in a borderline case to give the defendant the opportunity to provide instead a specimen of blood. After all, if he does not provide it he will fall to be convicted on his breath specimen. Assume, however, that the machine is not working properly, then in any event it is open to the police officer to require the blood specimen. I can see no possible reason why the prosecution should have to prove one way or the other whether the machine was actually working properly. The defendant is, if anything, better off if it is assumed to be working: the option then becomes his."
and "The plain fact is that the questions formulated raise but a single issue, that which I earlier identified: does the prosecution have to prove that the machine was actually working accurately when a driver is put to his election under section 8(2)? In my judgment, the plain answer to that is 'No' and in the result this appeal falls to be dismissed."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Hoy v McFadyen [2000] SLT 1060
2000
HCJ
Lord Sutherland
Road Traffic, Scotland
The accused was charged with driving whilst disqualified. He had been in the driver's seat and had started the engine. On turning off the engine the car lurched forward slightly. The handbrake was defective and would not hold the car on a slope. To hold the car whilst the engine was running, the accused had had to sit with his feet on the footbrake. When the engine was switched off, the accused was required to leave the vehicle in gear. It was argued that driving required motion and that the minimal movement of the car after the police approached and asked him to turn off the engine was insufficient. Held: "In our view the situation in the present case is a rather unusual one, particularly because of the fact that the handbrake was defective and it required either that the car be in gear with the engine switched off or alternatively that the person in the driver's seat had to depress the footbrake and hold the footbrake down in order to prevent the car from moving. The position quite clearly, therefore, is that in the latter alternative in order to prevent movement of the car downhill there required to be a direct and continuing personal intervention on the part of the person in the driving seat. The fact that the engine was running at the time, that the appellant was the person in the driving seat, that the appellant had disengaged the gear in order to start the engine and as a consequence required to keep his foot on the footbrake, in our opinion go beyond mere preparation for driving, and the appellant has commenced driving even though there may have been no movement at all. The fact that there was movement at the end of the proceedings is a clear indication in our view that the appellant must have been driving because there would have been no movement but for the intervention on his part by disengaging the gear and using the footbrake. The correct test is to look at what the appellant was doing and not necessarily the result. For example, if the car had in fact rolled forward and hit another car perhaps a foot or two in front of it there can be no question but that the appellant would have been driving the car. The things that he was doing would have been exactly the same as he was doing in the present case. This shows that the question of movement of the car is not essential if the driver's activities have got beyond the stage of mere preparation for driving but have got to the stage when there is active intervention on his part to prevent movement and direction of the vehicle. In the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case we are quite satisfied that the appellant could be said to have been driving. In our view he was just as much driving as would be a person who in the course of proceeding along the road was stopped at a red traffic light, halted his vehicle, placed his foot on the footbrake and awaited the turning of the lights to green."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Buckland and Buckland and Capel v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions; Admn 11-Jan-2000 - Times, 10 February 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 279; [2000] 1 WLR 1949
Norman v Ali and Another, Norman v Aziz Gazette, 13 January 2000; Times, 25 February 2000
13 Jan 2000
CA
Limitation, Road Traffic, Personal Injury
The claimant sought damages following a road accident against an uninsured driver through the Motor Insurer's Bureau. The Bureau later required him to issue proceedings also against the car owner on the ground that he had permitted the driving. At first it was held the limitation period was six years for such a claim, but on appeal it was held that the words referring to a personal injury action in the Act were wide, and it was only required that the damages claimed arose in respect of personal injuries. The limitation period was three years.
Limitation Act 1980 11 - Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1988
Zoan v Rouamba [2000] EWCA Civ 8; [2001] 1 WLR 1509
21 Jan 2000
CA
Henry, Chadwick, May LJJ
Damages, Road Traffic, Negligence
Appeal against award of damages for hire of vehicle by claimant after road traffic collision.
[ Bailii ]
Margaret Anderson Brown v Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline Times, 14 February 2000; [2000] ScotHC 14
4 Feb 2000
HCJ
Lord Allanbridge and Lord Justice General and Lord Marnoch
Human Rights, Road Traffic, Crime
The power in the Road Traffic Act to force a registered keeper to say who was driving a car denies the driver a right to a fair trial by compelling a driver to give evidence against himself. A refusal to answer is itself a crime. The restriction on such powers must apply at the stage of evidence gathering as much as at trial. It does not apply at the stage where an officer is investigating whether a crime has been committed, but does when he moves on to ask who committed the offence.
Road Traffic Act 1988 172 - European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
Wawrzynczyk v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Constabulary Times, 16 March 2000; Gazette, 23 March 2000; CO/4116/99
28 Feb 2000
QBD
Schiemann LJ and Astill J
Road Traffic
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 the area subject to the restriction. Held: Any misleading element in the signage did not affect that issue, and he was properly convicted. Where a temporary speed limit is in force on a stretch of road under an order made under the section 14, the order is not invalidated by speed restriction signs so placed as to suggest that the order applied to a longer stretch of road than was in fact the case. The offence of 'exceeding the speed limit' is not an offence requiring a mental element. The purpose of section 85 is that "adequate guidance be given to motorists".
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 14
1 Citers
Fleming v Mayne [2000] NICA 5
3 Mar 2000
CANI
Northern Ireland, Road Traffic
The court set out the circumstances in which it could find special reasons for not disqualifying a driver who had driven with excess alcohol.
Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Tempest (t/a Cesspool Sid) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; ChD 16-Mar-2000 - Times, 16 March 2000
Director of Public Prosecutions v Furby Times, 23 March 2000
23 Mar 2000
QBD
Road Traffic, Crime
A motorist had deliberately failed to complete the breath test procedure twice. In later court proceedings he was able to bring medical evidence that he would have been unable to do so in any event. He was held to have been properly convicted. There could be no reasonable excuse where inability was later shown. He would only have been able to rely on the inability to supply a specimen if he had tried to provide one and failed.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)
Interlink Express Parcels Ltd v Night Trunkers Ltd and Another Gazette, 23 March 2000
23 Mar 2000
ChD
Contract, Road Traffic
The claimant contracted to deliver parcels overnight. By a contract the defendant supplied drivers to carry out some of the work. The claimant sought a declaration that the contract was void. By virtue of the arrangement the defendant came to be operating the vehicles, and so needed a licence for carrying goods by road for hire or reward. The defendant had no such licence. It was held that the agreement was void. The first defendant remained the employer. He decided the routes, paid holiday pay and arranged stand ins.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
O'Sullivan v Director of Public Prosecutions Unreported, 27 March 2000
27 Mar 2000
Road Traffic, Magistrates
Where a motorist challenges the accuracy of the intoximeter, there is only an evidential burden on him.
Road Traffic Act 1988 5
1 Cites
1 Citers
Cantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate Gazette, 05 May 2000; Times, 13 April 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 315
31 Mar 2000
Admn
Road Traffic
Even though no underlying offence was suspected, the owner of tachograph records was required to hand them over to the inspector for inspection off the premises if necessary. An offer to allow inspection, but only at the record keeper's offices was not a sufficient compliance with a requirement to hand them over. The express power to take records arose when an offence was suspected. The obligation did not depend upon receipt of a notice requiring delivery of the records within ten days to the office of the Traffic Commissioner.
Transport Act 196899
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5-Apr-2000 - Gazette, 05 May 2000; Times, 12 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 106; [2000] 1 WLR 2383; [2000] RTR 27; [2000] 4 All ER 169
Director of Public Prosecutions v Noe Times, 19 April 2000; Gazette, 18 May 2000
19 Apr 2000
QBD
Road Traffic, Crime
When required to give a sample of breath, the motorist consented but made his consent conditional upon first having access to a law book. He was charged with refusing to provide a specimen of breath without a lawful excuse. A motorist is not entitled to add a condition to his consent, and he had no reasonable excuse.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)
Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council [2000] EWHC Admin 336
19 Apr 2000
Admn
Road Traffic, Planning
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Jolley v Director of Public Prosecutions; QBD 5-May-2000 - Gazette, 05 May 2000
Director of Public Prosecutions v Baldwin; QBD 11-May-2000 - Times, 17 May 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000
Batchelor v Marlow and Another Times, 07 June 2000; Gazette, 25 May 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000; (2001) 82 P & CR 36
25 May 2000
ChD
Land, Road Traffic, Limitation
The applicant claimed parking rights as an easement. If an easement was capable of arising by virtue of a deed of grant, it could also be acquired by prescription. This was such an easement. Use in the absence of planning permission did not vitiate the acquisition by prescription, since the use did not become unlawful until a planning enforcement notice had been served.
1 Citers
Regina - - Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Taussik Unreported, 7 June 2000
7 Jun 2000
Road Traffic
Even business premises will be 'public' if the location is a public service, a railway station, a hospital or other public utility.
1 Citers
Goodes v East Sussex County Council; HL 16-Jun-2000 - Times, 16 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000; [2000] UKHL 34; [2000] 3 All ER 603; [2000] 1 WLR 1356
Regina v Wiggins; CACD 23-Jun-2000 - Times, 23 June 2000
Regina v Swansea City and Council, Ex Parte Davies; QBD 7-Jul-2000 - Times, 07 July 2000
Regina v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council, Ex Parte Eminian Times, 17 August 2000
17 Aug 2000
QBD
Planning, Road Traffic
When a householder applied for leave to construct a vehicular crossing over a footway to the carriageway, the highway authority was entitled to consider the effect such a way would have on the controlled parking zone, and could go beyond the elements listed in the section. Here the grant of the right would have reduced the number of parking spaces available within the zone, and this was enough reason to refuse consent.
Highways Act 1980 184(1)
Mendes Ferreira and Delgado Correia Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confianca SA C-348/98; [2000] EUECJ C-348/98; [2000] ECR 1-6711
14 Sep 2000
ECJ
European, Insurance, Road Traffic
Europa Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles - Directives 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC - Minimum amounts of cover - Type of civil liability - Injury caused to a member of the family of the insured person or driver.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Criminal Proceedings Against Hume Case C-193/99 Times, 05 October 2000
5 Oct 2000
ECJ
Road Traffic, European
When a driver subject to the tachograph requirements did not take his rest period in one week, the regulation permitting him to aggregate it with that in the week following did not permit him to take two separate rest periods in that week, but rather two periods together. The wording of the directive as expressed in languages other than English was clear, and the English was not very doubtful.
Regina v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Heath Unreported, 16 October 2000
16 Oct 2000
Maurice Kay J
Licensing, Road Traffic
It was submitted that the schemes relating to hackney carriages and private hire vehicles were two distinct schemes, and that the issues in that case had arisen because the Council had fallen into the trap of seeking to apply private hire statutory provisions to a hackney carriage situation. Held: The court agreed and added that the Council might be able to require persons in the position of the applicant in that case, who was licensed under the 1847 Act, to provide information in advance about who would act as a substitute driver in a case of need, and further requiring him or anyone else driving the vehicle to keep a contemporaneous record of who drove which vehicle on what day.
1 Citers
Director of Public Prosecutions v Orchard [2000] EWHC Admin 402
17 Oct 2000
Admn
Road Traffic
The prosecution appealed a finding of no case to answer against a defendant accused of driving with excess alcohol. On being offered a choice of blood or urine test, he had asked 'What is the quickest way out of here' which the officer recorded as declining to accept the offer. The magistrates had relied upon Jackson and Stanley. He had not been asked if there was any medical reason why he should not give a specimen. Held: The defendant had suffered no prejudice (as required in Stanley) within the procedure by any failure of the officer.
Road Traffic Act 1988 8(2)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions Gazette, 02 November 2000; Times, 20 October 2000
20 Oct 2000
QBD
Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic
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 totting up ban. There was no double jeopardy, since the two systems considered different aspects of the offence, the speed driven on this occasion, and the repetition creating a pattern of behaviour. The two systems were not mutually exclusive, or alternatives.
Road Traffic Act 1972
1 Citers
Eastbourne Borough Council v Charles William Stirling, Robert John Morley Times, 16 November 2000; Gazette, 07 December 2000; HC Admin 410
31 Oct 2000
Admn
Road Traffic, Licensing
A taxi operating from private land by a station forecourt, but which could be seen to attract passengers from a nearby busy roadway, was plying for hire in a public street, and accordingly required a private licence under the Act.
[ Bailii ]
Director of Public Prosecutions v Saddington; Chief Constable of the North Yorkshire Police v Michael Saddington; Admn 1-Nov-2000 - Times, 01 November 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 409; [2001] RTR 227
Director of Public Prosecutions v Falzarano Gazette, 16 November 2000; Times, 24 November 2000
16 Nov 2000
QBD
Road Traffic
The defendant had failed to provide a specimen of breath at the police station. Her GP gave evidence that she suffered from panic attacks, and that such an attack would lead to a shortness of breath which would make it difficult for her to provide a specimen of breath. The prosecutor's appeal failed. The magistrates had had the advantage of observing the defendant's demeanour, and the reasonable excuse defence had been established.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)
Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown; PC 5-Dec-2000 - Times, 06 December 2000; [2001] 2 WLR 817; [2003] 1 AC 681; [2001] 2 All ER 97; [2000] UKPC D3; 2000 GWD 40-151; 11 BHRC 179; 2001 SLT 59; 2001 SC (PC) 43; (2001) 3 LGLR 24; [2001] RTR 121; [2001] UKHRR 333; [2001] HRLR 9; 2001 SCCR 62
Lee Christopher Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 26 January 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 429; [2000] EWHC QB 44
7 Dec 2000
Admn
Lord Justice Waller, And Mr Justice Sachs
Road Traffic, Human Rights
The irrebuttable presumption contained in the Act that the level of alcohol contained in the accused's blood at the time when he was stopped was no less than the level measured later that the police station, was not incompatible with the defendant's right to a fair trial. It lay ill in the mouth of a defendant to argue innocence on the basis that he had consumed alcohol only shortly before driving, but to such a level that it did not show up when stopped, but only later when tested at the police station. Given the importance of the need to prevent drunken driving, the assumption and its irrebutable nature was reasonable, and not an infringement of the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15(2) - Road Traffic Act 1988 5 - Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15
1 Cites
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council [2000] EWCA Civ 324
14 Dec 2000
CA
Planning, Road Traffic
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Michael Joseph Butler v Director of Public Prosecutions; CACD 20-Dec-2000 - Times, 14 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Crim 76
Wylie on Behalf of SMP Motor Policies at Lloyds v Wake [2000] EWCA Civ 349
21 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Laws, And Lord Justice Rix
Road Traffic, Insurance, Personal Injury
The claimant sought to recover damages following a road accident. The driver's insurance was defective. The driver claimed under section 151, but proceedings were issued without formal notice of the issue of proceedings having been given to MIB. The claim proceeded for some time before objection was made. Held: There was a clear distinction between notice of a claim, and a notice of proceedings. The notice need not be in any particular form, but must be an unconditional clear notice of the intention to commence formal proceedings. No sufficient notice had been given. The claimant alleged an estoppel against the defendant. The section is not a statutory defence, it is a condition precedent to liability, and accordingly no estoppel could arise.
Road Traffic Act 1988 152(1)(a)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
