Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 2003 To: 2003

This page lists 57 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina v Cooksley [2003] RTR 483
2003
CA

Road Traffic

1 Citers


 
Akers and others v Motor Insurers' Bureau and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 18
14 Jan 2003
CA

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Robertson, Regina (on the Application Of) v South Western Magistrates' Court [2003] EWHC 63 (Admin)
15 Jan 2003
Admn

Road Traffic

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
[ Bailii ]
 
Ahmed v Birmingham Magistrates' Court [2003] EWHC 72 (Admin)
16 Jan 2003
Admn

Road Traffic, Human Rights
Delay in hearing
[ Bailii ]
 
Grant v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 130 (Admin)
22 Jan 2003
Admn
Clarke LJ, Jack J
Road Traffic
The appellant had been convicted of failing to give a breath test, and of driving with excess alcohol. He had falsely claimed that he had had a drink in the five minutes before being asked to take the test, and said the officer should not have requested the breath test. Held: The conviction was upheld. The expert's evidence was largely based upon speculation, and the court had been able properly to reject it, and the device was properly accepted.
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a) 6(4) - Breath Analysis Devices (No 2) Approval Regulations 1998
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Graham, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 120 (Admin)
22 Jan 2003
Admn

Road Traffic
Speeding - assessment by police oficers
[ Bailii ]
 
Grealis v Opuni Times, 07 February 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 177
28 Jan 2003
CA
Kennedy, Mantell, Mance, LJJ
Road Traffic, Negligence
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages. The defendant car driver had knocked him from his cycle. The only evidence of negligence was that the car driver was driving in excess of the speed limit. Held: The former rule that breaches of traffic regulations were not ipso facto to be considered as evidence of negligence should not be followed. However, even though the car driver contributed, the cyclist claimant remained 80% responsible in this case.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Bingham, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions; Admn 7-Feb-2003 - [2003] EWHC 247 (Admin)

 
 Director of Public Prosecutions v Ubhi; Admn 11-Feb-2003 - [2003] EWHC 619 (Admin)
 
Richardson v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 359 (Admin)
20 Feb 2003
Admn
Stanley Burnton J
Road Traffic
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that the device used to make the measurement did not have type approval. Held: The appeal failed. Stanley Burnton J considered the issue of type approval of a breath analysis device and said that a device may not be an approved device because it never complied with the description of the device contained in the approval order. Alterations may have been made to it during the course of time as to take it out of the description in the schedule to the order. It would seem that a device which did not include the intoximeter EC/IR gas delivery system, by way of example, or a software version which was not a UK 5.23, but some significantly different version, would not be an approved device. However: "It does not follow that from every modification to an Intoximeter takes it out of approval, far from it. The alteration must be such in my judgment that the description in the schedule of the order no longer applies to it."
If the only contention was that the modifications to the Intoximeter device had been such that it was no longer in the same condition as it had been when the Secretary of State's approval was given that could not amount to the defence. It had to be shown that the modifications were such that it was no longer an approved device.
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Whyte v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 358 (Admin)
20 Feb 2003
Admn

Road Traffic
Driving with Excess alcohol - evidence
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 16
[ Bailii ]
 
Byrne, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 397 (Admin)
21 Feb 2003
Admn

Road Traffic, Crime
Driving with excess alcohol
[ Bailii ]
 
Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 25 February 2003; [2003] EWHC 273 (Admin); Gazette, 03 April 2003; [2004] QB 487
24 Feb 2003
Admn
Lord Justice Clarke Mr Justice Henriques Mr Justice Jack
Crime, Human Rights, Road Traffic
The defendant challenged the application of the section, under which he was deemed to have intended to drive a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol, unless he could prove it was not his intent to drive, saying this infringed his right to a fair trial. Held: The section must be read down to comply with the Convention. The burden to be placed on a defendant was the evidential burden only, and not the legal burden. Once he raised the issue, and pointed to some evidence that there was no likelihood of his driving, the burden of proving there was some real risk of him driving must fall on the prosecution. It was not necessary to impose the legal burden of proof on the defendant.
European Convention on Human Rights 6.2 - Road Traffic Act 1988 5(8)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Nawaz and Another v Crowe Insurance Group Times, 11 March 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 316
24 Feb 2003
CA
Woolf LCJ, Kennedy, Scott Baker LJJ
Insurance, Road Traffic, Litigation Practice
The claimant had claimed aganst the driver, but gave notice of the intention to make a claim on his insurance by telephone only. The insurers repudiated liability. Held: Whilst solicitors would be strongly advised to give such notice in writing, an oral notice given to a proper officer of the insurer could be sufficient. In this case oral notice to a legal secretary was sufficient.
Road Traffic Act 1988 152
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Grace v Tanner [2003] EWCA Civ 354
27 Feb 2003
CA

Road Traffic, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Campbell v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 559 (Admin)
28 Feb 2003
Admn

Road Traffic, Crime

Road Traffic Act 1988 5
[ Bailii ]
 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Bayliff [2003] EWHC 539 (Admin)
7 Mar 2003
Admn

Road Traffic

[ Bailii ]
 
Kingsnorth and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 768 (Admin)
17 Mar 2003
Admn

Road Traffic
driving while disqualified
Road Traffic Act 1988 3(1)(b)
[ Bailii ]
 
Walden, Regina (on the Application of) v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court [2003] EWHC 708 (Admin)
19 Mar 2003
Admn
Mitchell J
Road Traffic, Crime
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."
Road Traffic Act 1988 5
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Adjei v King [2003] EWCA Civ 414
19 Mar 2003
CA

Road Traffic, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application Of) v Preston [2003] EWHC 729 (Admin)
20 Mar 2003
Admn

Road Traffic

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
[ Bailii ]
 
Mirvahedy v Henley and another Times, 24 March 2003; [2003] UKHL 16; Gazette, 15 May 2003; [2003] 2 AC 491; [2003] RTR 26; [2003] PIQR P25; [2003] NPC 38; [2003] 2 WLR 882; [2003] 2 All ER 401
20 Mar 2003
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Nicholls
Animals, Road Traffic, Personal Injury
The defendants' horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant's car. Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal "in the particular circumstances", these being some sort of fright or other external stimulus. Section 2 places all animals into one of two categories by their species. Animals either belong to a dangerous species, or they do not. A keeper of an animal is liable for damage caused by his animal dependant upon the category. A dangerous species must meet two requirements, a) that it is not commonly domesticated here and b) that fully grown animals 'normally have such characteristics that they are likely, unless restrained, to cause severe damage or that any damage they may cause is likely to be severe'.
Lord Nicholls: "Take a large and heavy domestic animal such as a mature cow. There is a real risk that if a cow happens to stumble and fall onto someone, any damage suffered will be severe. This would satisfy requirement (a). . . But a cow's dangerousness in this regard may not fall within requirement (b). This dangerousness is due to a characteristic normally found in all cows at all times. The dangerousness results from their very size and weight. It is not due to a characteristic not normally found in cows 'except at particular times or in particular circumstances.'"
Animals Act 1971 2 6(2) 11
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Bryan Haulage Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate (No2) [Appeal 217/2002] [Appeal 217/2002]
1 Apr 2003
TT

Road Traffic, Licensing
(date?) "In applying the Crompton case it seems to us that the traffic commissioners and the Tribunal have to reconsider their approach. In cases involving mandatory revocation it has been common for findings to have been made along the lines of "I find your conduct to be so serious that I have had to conclude that you have lost your repute: accordingly, I have also to revoke your licence because the statute gives me no discretion." The effect of the Court of Appeal's judgment is that this two-stage approach is incorrect and that the sanction has to be considered at the earlier stage. Thus the question is not whether the conduct is so serious as to amount to a loss of repute but whether it is so serious as to require revocation. Put simply, the question becomes "is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?" On appeal, the Tribunal must consider not only the details of cases but the overall result."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hayling v Harper and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 1147
2 Apr 2003
CA
Ward LJ
Land, Road Traffic
The case asked whether vehicular user of a public footpath in breach of section 34(1) of the 1988 Act could lead to the acquisition by prescription of a public right of way. Held: Hanning barred a claim to the easement under section 2 of the 1832 Act. The user relied on had been illegal since 1930 and the claimants could not, therefore, rely on the user between 1930 and the commencement of the proceedings. The evidence of user pre 1930 enabled the claimants to establish the acquisition of an easement by lost modern grant before the advent of section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1930.
Road Traffic Act 1988 - Prescription Act 1832 2 - Road Traffic Act 1930 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Partingdale Lane Residents' Association, Regina (on the Application of) v Barnet London Borough Council [2003] EWHC 947 (Admin)
2 Apr 2003
Admn
Rabinder Singh QC
Road Traffic, Local Government
Complaint was made that a Councillor had closed his mind to any arguments and had predetermined the decision on a proposed road re-opening order. Held: The application was allowed. Councillor Coleman had himself gone beyond a legitimate predisposition or even giving strong weight to his own manifesto commitment that Partingdale Lane should be re-opened, and had predetermined the issue of principle as to its re-opening before consultation ever took place. That predisposition was not cured by subsequent council processes.
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - Local Government Act 2000 10 11 13
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Smith, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 1080 (Admin)
1 May 2003
Admn

Road Traffic, Crime

Road Traffic Act 1988 143(2)
[ Bailii ]
 
Richmond v Express Ltd (T/A Express Dairies Distribution) [2003] EWHC 1181 (Admin)
6 May 2003
Admn

Road Traffic

[ Bailii ]
 
Russell v Devine (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Northern Ireland) [2003] UKHL 24; [2003] NI 224; [2003] 1 WLR 1187; [2003] 2 Cr App R 26
8 May 2003
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett
Northern Ireland, Road Traffic
The House was asked whether a specimen of blood required under the regulations, having been requested at a hospital or health centre had to be taken there. Held: The health centre was not a hospital within the regulations. However the request had already been made at a police station, which request had not been superseded.
Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (SI 1995/2994)
1 Cites

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Mills v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 1451 (Admin)
21 May 2003
Admn

Road Traffic

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
[ Bailii ]
 
King v Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] EWCA Civ 730
23 May 2003
CA
Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Schiemann Lord Justice Sedley
Road Traffic, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
John Kimball Stewart v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 1323 (Admin); Times, 07 July 2003; [2003] RTR 35
2 Jun 2003
QBD
The Hon Mr Justice Goldring The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales
Crime, Road Traffic
The defendant gave two specimens of breath, but they differed so markedly that the officer considered them unreliable. He offered the defendant the choice of a further two attempts or to give a specimen of blood or urine. He was convicted on the second set of breath tests. He appealed, saying he should not have been required to give such further specimens. Held: The first tests were nugatory, and accordingly the second set were arguably the first. The Act required the officer to offer the choice for a blood test. He had done that, and had not required the second set of breath tests. The conviction stood.
Road Traffic Act 1988 4 5 7(1)(a) 11(3)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wooldridge, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 1663 (Admin)
19 Jun 2003
Admn

Road Traffic

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
[ Bailii ]
 
Jones v Crown Prosecution Service [2003] EWHC 1729 (Admin)
23 Jun 2003
Admn

Road Traffic

[ Bailii ]
 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Conroy [2003] EWHC 1674 (Admin)
23 Jun 2003
Admn

Road Traffic
The DPP appealed a finding of special reasons for not disqualifying the defendant after finding him guilty of driving with excess alcohol. He had been stopped driving at excess speed, he had driven over a mile and had a further two hundred yards to drive, and had driven through the centre of Congleton. He pointed out it was at three in the morning, and that his girlfriend was unwell and unable to return home unassisted. Held: The magistrates decision was so perverse as to be wrong in law. The distance was not short and had been erratic and at speed, and had been through a town with pedestrians. A taxi could have been found for the girlfriend.
Road Traffic Act 1988 5
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Netherlands C-246/00; [2003] EUECJ C-246/00; [2003] ECR I-7485
10 Jul 2003
ECJ

European, Road Traffic
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 91/439/CEE. The directive required member states to introduce a system to recognise community driving licences. The Netherlands had instituted a system which made difficult the continued use of a community licence. Held: The system set down in Netherlands conflicted with the directive in several ways.
Council Directive 91/439/CEE
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Thomas John Marchant, Edward Muntz [2003] EWCA Crim 2099
21 Jul 2003
CACD
The Vice President (Lord Justice Rose) Mr Justice Grigson Mr Justice Beatson
Crime, Road Traffic
The second defendant, a farmer, employed the first defendant, inter alia, to drive his tractor. The tractor, when fitted up was necessarily dangerous, but was licensed to be driven on the roads. There was a fatal accident on the highway. The defendants appealed convictions for causing death by dangerous driving. Held: A driver could not escape criminal liability for taking a dangerous vehicle onto the road merely because the vehicle was licensed in that condition by the Secretary of State. However prosecutors should take particular care before deciding to prosecute in such circumstances.
Road Traffic Act 1988 40A 41 44
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Eagle v Chambers [2003] EWCA Civ 1107; Times, 01 September 2003; [2004] RTR 115
24 Jul 2003
CA
Ward, Waller, Hale LJJ
Negligence, Road Traffic, Personal Injury, Damages
The claimant was severely injured when run down by the defendant driving his car. She was in Blackpool, and drunk and wandering in the highway. The defendant was himself at or near the drink driving limit. She appealed against a finding that she was 60% to blame. Held: Courts have consistently required drivers to recognise that they control dangerous machinery. It would be rare for a driver not to have greater responsibilty than a pedestrian for injury. In this case the claimant would be held 40% responsible.
Lady Justice Hale said: "The potential 'destructive disparity' between the parties can readily be taken into account as an aspect of blameworthiness" and "It is rare indeed for a pedestrian to be found more responsible than a driver unless the pedestrian has suddenly moved into the path of an oncoming vehicle. That is not this case. The Court has consistently imposed upon the drivers of cars a high burden to reflect the fact that the car is potentially a dangerous weapon".
Hale LJ said that the court could not avoid comparing the two parties: "We also accept that this court is always reluctant to interfere with the trial judge's judgment of what apportionment between the parties is 'just and equitable' under the 1945 Act. But a finding as to which, if either, of the parties was the more responsible for the damage is different from a finding as to the precise extent of a less than 50 per cent contribution. There is a qualitative difference between a finding of 60 per cent contribution and a finding of 40 per cent which is not so apparent in the quantitive difference between 40 per cent and 20 per cent. It is rare indeed for a pedestrian to be found more responsible than a driver unless the pedestrian has suddenly moved into the path of an oncoming vehicle. That is not this case. The court 'has consistently imposed upon the drivers of cars a high burden to reflect the fact that the car is potentially a dangerous weapon': Latham LJ in Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civ 801."
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application Of) v Chambers [2003] EWHC 2142 (Admin)
25 Jul 2003
Admn

Road Traffic
The prosecutor appealed dismissal of charges of driving with excess alcohol. The defendant had admited driving, but said she had consumed alcohol in the twenty minutes between driving and the police coming to her home. Expert evidence had been given. Held: The magistrates had been worng to confine their assessment of the facts to the expert evidence, disregarding evidence from the accused that she had drunk more than the situations envisaged in the expert reports, of which the one proposed by the defendant had no basis in evidence.
Road Traffic Act 1988 5 - Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Pritchard and Another v Crown Prosecution Service [2003] EWHC 1851 (Admin)
28 Jul 2003
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Mccombe
Road Traffic
The defendants appealed convictions for operating vehicles without tachographs. The issue arose upon the combined weight of vehicle and trailer exceeding the maximum. Held: The legislation seems to be directed at providing maximum driving periods for heavy vehicles, including relatively light vehicles which exceed certain weights when a "trailer" is added. In the case of a vehicle drawing a trailer the relevant maximum weight is the aggregate relevant maximum weight of the vehicle and trailer. Where the maximum gross weight is marked on either, the relevant maximum weight is that weight.
Transport Act 1968 97
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Vehicle and Operator Services Agency v Johnson [2003] EWHC 2104 (Admin)
30 Jul 2003
Admn

Road Traffic

[ Bailii ]
 
Mawdesley and Yorke v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary and Another [2003] EWHC 1586 (Admin); Times, 11 September 2003
31 Jul 2003
Admn
Owen J
Road Traffic
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 evidence against them. Held: The forms could not be used as evidence against the defendants on the charges of speeding. A form otherwise complete but unsigned did not satisfy the requirements of the section.
Motorways Traffic (Speed Limit) Regulations 1974 (1974 No 502) 3 - Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 17(4) - Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 12(1)(b) Sch 2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kirkup v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 2354 (Admin)
3 Oct 2003
Admn

Road Traffic, Crime

Road Traffic Act 1988 7
[ Bailii ]
 
Haggis v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 2481 (Admin)
7 Oct 2003
Admn

Road Traffic, Litigation Practice

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Richards, Regina (on the Application Of) v Pembrokeshire County Council [2003] EWHC 2532 (Admin)
9 Oct 2003
Admn

Road Traffic, Local Government

[ Bailii ]
 
Jones, Regina (on the Application Of) v Guildford Crown Court [2003] EWHC 2527 (Admin)
14 Oct 2003
Admn

Road Traffic

[ Bailii ]
 
Cooper v Floor Cleaning Machines Ltd and Another Gazette, 13 November 2003; Times, 24 October 2003
20 Oct 2003
CA
Ward. Scott-Baker, Thomas LJJ
Litigation Practice, Road Traffic
The judge had heard the evidence from two drivers involved in a road traffic incident. He had declared that he could find no way to prefer the evidence of one over the other. Accordingly neither had proved his or her case on the balance of probabilities, and both claims were dismissed. Held: A court might very exceptionally find itself in the position the judge said applied here, but it would be particularly rare in road traffic cases. Examining the evidence the court found for the appellant. Before resorting to the burden of proof, a court should, as in Ashraf, raise with counsel the possibility that such a course might have to be taken. The judge erred in failing to analyse the evidence and that, had he done so, he would have found that the defendants had discharged the burden of proof.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hoar-Stevens v Richmond Magistrates' Court [2003] EWHC 2660 (Admin)
23 Oct 2003
Admn
Kennedy LJ
Road Traffic
The court considered an application to quash an order requiring the attendance of the claimant to give evidence: "Normally this court will not entertain an application for a quashing order in relation to a decision made in a magistrates' court where the proceedings in that court are not complete. In R v Rochford Justices ex-parte Buck (1978) 68 Cr App R 114 it was said that there is no jurisdiction to do so, and a distinction was drawn between an order to direct a magistrate to hear and determine a matter, which can be obtained if he refuses to do so, and an order, as Cockburn CJ put it in Carden (1879) 5 QBD 1 at 5, "to control the magistrate in the conduct of the case or to prescribe to him the evidence which he shall receive or reject." Such control, it was said, could only be exercised when the case was at an end. In Buck the prosecution had sought to introduce certain evidence which the justices ruled inadmissible. The matter was then adjourned to enable the prosecution to test the ruling in the Divisional Court. When giving the judgment in this court Lord Widgery CJ said that the decision to adjourn was wrong. The prosecution were asking this court to do what Cockburn CJ had said could not be done, that is to say to exercise a measure of control over the way the magistrates try the case. At page 118 he said: "The obligation of this Court to keep out of the way until the magistrate has finished his determination seems to me to be a principle properly to be applied both to summary trial and to committal proceedings. Accordingly, I would be prepared to dispose of this matter on the first argued point, namely, that there was no jurisdiction in this Court to interfere with the justices' decision, that not having been reached by termination of the proceedings below."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Houghton v Stannard [2003] EWHC 2666 (QB)
29 Oct 2003
QBD

Road Traffic, Negligence

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Robinson v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 2718 (Admin)
3 Nov 2003
Admn

Road Traffic

[ Bailii ]
 
Oddy, Regina (on the Application of) v Bugbugs Ltd [2003] EWHC 2865 (Admin)
12 Nov 2003
Admn

Crime, Licensing, Road Traffic
A private prosecutor appealed dismissal of his complaint that the respondent had operated an unlicensed man-powered rickshaw service. The district judge had held that it was not a taxi service. It was, under the 1869 Act a stage carriage and therefore not requiring a licence under section 7. Held: It was not possible to argue that the statute made a disrtinction between stage carriages and private hire vehicles according to whether they took up and set down passengers on a route. Regulations which might have made such a distinction had never been made. The defendant could only properly be said to have solicited fares required some form of invitation to a prospective hirer. That evidence was absent, and the appeal failed.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 164 - Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 7
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Deutsch v London Borough of Hackney [2003] EWHC 2692 (Admin)
14 Nov 2003
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper
Road Traffic, Discrimination, Local Government

[ Bailii ]
 
Joseph v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 02 December 2003; Gazette, 15 January 2004
24 Nov 2003
QBD
Lord Woolf LCJ, Mackay J
Road Traffic
The defendant had given a specimen of breath over the minimum, but below 5omg, and accordingly he was to be allowed to give a specimen of blood or urine. The choice was the officers using a wide discretion. That discretion was still to be exercised reasonably. As a rastafarian, the defendant had refused to give a blood specimen. Held: The officer had failed to use his discretion properly when refused the defendant the opportunity to give a urine specimen.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7
1 Cites


 
Joseph v Director of Public Prosecutitons [2003] EWHC 3078 (Admin)
24 Nov 2003
Admn

Road Traffic

Road Traffic Act 1988 7
[ Bailii ]
 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Alderton [2003] EWHC 2917 (Admin); Times, 27 November 2003; [2004] RTR 23
25 Nov 2003
Admn
Harrison J
Road Traffic
The defendant had been found sat in his car. He had been spinning its wheels, but not moving. The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of a charge of attempting to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol. Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant was driving. Although the car had not moved, his behaviour required him to have effective control over the movement of the vehicle, and his actions to prevent movement, and he was driving within the normal meaning of the word to drive. The justices erred in law in concluding that there had to be some movement of the vehicle before the respondent could be said to be driving it. Each case will depend on its own facts.
Harrison J said: "first, a test of degree of control over the movement and direction of the vehicle, there was a sufficient degree of control being exercised by the defendant, by ensuring that the handbrake prevented the movement of the vehicle despite the fact that the wheels were turning, to say that the defendant was driving the vehicle; that, applying, secondly, a test of whether what was being done fell within the ordinary meaning of 'driving', a person wheel spinning could properly be said to be 'driving' a vehicle within the ordinary meaning of that word, in that a person wheel spinning was driving a vehicle in such a way as to seek to ensure that it did not go forward whilst its wheels were turning; and that, therefore, the justices erred in law in concluding that there had to be some movement of the vehicle before the defendant could be said to be driving it, and the case would be remitted to the justices with a direction to convict."
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lagden v O'Connor [2003] UKHL 64; Times, 05 December 2003; [2004] 1 AC 1067; [2004] 1 All ER 277; [2003] 3 WLR 1571; [2004] Lloyd's Rep IR 315; [2004] RTR 24
4 Dec 2003
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Damages, Road Traffic, Costs
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant's parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought payment of the cost of the credit agreement. Held: A negligent driver must take his victim as he finds him. Mr Lagden's claim was, in essence, a claim for the loss of use of his car while it was in the garage undergoing the repairs as a result of the accident. He had no choice but to hire the vehicle, and but to do so on credit. The cost of the credit was recoverable.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Evans v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and The Motor Insurers' Bureau C-63/01; Times, 09 December 2003; [2003] EUECJ C-63/01
4 Dec 2003
ECJ

European, Insurance, Road Traffic
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division - United Kingdom. Approximation of laws - Directive 84/5/EEC - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles - Damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles - Protection of victims - Defective transposition of the directive - Liability of the Member State concerned.
The case concerned the United Kingdom’s implementation of a directive relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. Implementation had been effected by means of a number of agreements between the Secretary of State and an existing body, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. In considering the adequacy of such implementation, the ECJ stated: "As to whether it is sufficient, for the purposes of transposing the Second Directive, to rely on an existing body, it must be borne in mind that, whilst legislative action on the part of each Member State is not necessarily required in order to implement a directive, it is essential for national law to guarantee that the national authorities will effectively apply the directive in full, that the legal position under national law should be sufficiently precise and clear and that individuals are made fully aware of all their rights and, where appropriate, may rely on them before the national courts . . . In those circumstances, it must be held that a body may be regarded as authorised by a Member State within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the Second Directive where its obligation to provide compensation to victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles derives from an agreement concluded between that body and a public authority of the Member State, provided that the agreement is interpreted and applied as obliging the body to provide victims with the compensation guaranteed to them by the Second Directive and provided that victims may apply directly to that body"
Directive 84/5/EEC
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Green v Bannister [2003] EWCA Civ 1819
16 Dec 2003
CA

Road Traffic, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.