Lord-Castle v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 23 Jan 2009

The defendant appealed by case stated from his conviction for using a motor vehicle fitted with a siren. When stopped various items suggesting that driver might be providing an ambulance service were found. The siren was not used.
Held: The test was: ‘is the vehicle concerned used (or primarily used) for conveying the sick, the injured or disabled? If so, it is ‘used for ambulance purposes’. Otherwise, it is not.’ The court had applied the wrong test, but the appeal failed. The defendant had not given evidence, and the court had been free to draw an adverse inference under section 35 of the 1996 Act.


Scott Baker LJ, Maddison J


[2009] EWHC 87 (QB), [2009] EWHC 87 (Admin)


Bailii, Bailii


Road Vehicles (Construction and Use Regulations) 1986, Road Traffic Act 1988 42, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Aziz; Regina v Tosun; Regina v Yorganci HL 16-Jun-1995
The defendant (one of three) relied upon his part exculpatory statement made in interview and did not give evidence. The judge said that his good character was relevant as to his own propensity, and the character of the others was relevant to their . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Hawkins 1996
That a motor vehicle was not, when stopped, carrying a patient, was not determinative of whether it was being used as an ambulance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.280152