A passenger who was effectively involved in a joint enterprise with a drunk driver has no claim against Motor Insurers Bureau under the scheme. The MIB was not liable to a passenger who was aware that the driver had no insurance.
Gazette 05-Jan-1995, Times 23-Nov-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.89560
A hot chestnut brazier was article ‘deposited on highway’ and was removable by a police constable.
Times 07-Feb-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.89064
The Lord Chief Justice was unable to accept that someone with 127 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, a little over half the legal limit, did not feel any effect. The process of considering whether special reasons might avoid a disqualification, the magistrates had a two stage. First to test the evidence to see whether special reasons existed, and second whether as an exercise of discretion, they should not disqualify.
[1974] RTR 451
England and Wales
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v O’Connor and Chapman and Others 1991
The court looked at the elements needed to be established to support a defence to a charge of driving with excess alcohol on the basis that the defendant’s drinks had been spiked: ‘On the authorities, it is now clearly established that the matters . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Sharma Admn 27-Apr-2005
The prosecution appealed by way of case stated a finding by the magistrates of special reasons for the non-disqualification of the respondent for driving with excess alcohol. The defendant had drunk acohol, but unknown to her a friend had added . .
Cited – Woolfe v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jun-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He claimed to have a medical condition under which the contents of his stomach would regurgitate into his mouth, and that this could exaggerate the alcohol reading.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.226028
When a driver suffers an obligatory disqualification through a drink driving offence, the court may not at the same time impose on his licence additional penalty points for offences associated with the events of the drink driving offence. The 1988 Act was a consolidating act, and was not to be construed so as to change the law in the absence of clear intention. The omission of certain words was not enough to evince that intention.
Times 30-Nov-1999, Gazette 08-Dec-1999
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 44(1), Road Traffic Act 1972 9(1)(a)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.83440
The Court gave guidance on the proper method of interpreting a term of a motor insurance policy which defines the limitations of use subject to which the policy provides cover. Roskill LJ: ‘Inevitably, where one has a phrase such as ‘social, domestic or pleasure purposes’ used in a policy of insurance . . there will be cases which will fall on one side of the line and cases which will fall on the other side. For my part, however much claims managers might wish it otherwise, I do not believe it is possible to state any firm principle under which it can always be predicted which side of the line a particular case will fall. It must depend on the facts of the particular case; and the facts of particular cases will vary infinitely in their detail.’ and ‘It seems to me that the solution to the problem can best be reached in this case by asking the question: what was the essential character of the journey in the course of which the particular accident occurred?’ and ‘It may well be that there will be cases, as there have been in the past, where the essential character . . of a particular journey was of a particular kind – and that that essential character will not be altered in the crucial respects merely because, incidental to that journey, something happens in the way of giving a lift to a friend as an act of courtesy or, to borrow Mr Justice du Parcq’s expression [in Passmore v Vulcan Boiler and General Insurance Co Ltd (1936) 54 Ll L R 92], charity.’ Megaw LJ: ‘[I]n general, I should have thought that there is something that can clearly be called, as I would put it, a primary purpose, by which I intend the same meaning, I think, as Roskill LJ intended in using the phrase ‘essential character of the journey’. If there be such a primary purpose, or essential character, then the Courts should not be meticulous to seek to find some possible secondary purpose, or some inessential character, the result of which could be suggested to be that the use of the car fell outside the proper use for the purposes of which cover was given by the insurance policy.’
Roskill LJ, Megaw LJ
[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 381, [1978] RTR 163
England and Wales
Cited – Keeley (Widow of Terence Noel James Keeley Deceased) v Pashen and Wren Motor Syndicate 1202 at Lloyd’s CA 10-Nov-2004
The driver had driven his car at a crowd of people intending to frighten them. Instead one had been killed. The insurers resisted liability saying that the use of the car for this purpose and as it was being used as a taxi, was not use for social . .
Applied – Caple v Sewell and others CA 9-Nov-2001
. .
Cited – AXA Insurance UK Ltd v EUI Ltd (T/A Elephant Insurance) QBD 14-May-2020
The claimant insurer had insured a garage in respect of a car it used for loan to customers when their own car was being repaired. There was a collision on the customer driving home from work. The defendant insurer was the driver’s own insurer. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.220134
[2012] EWHC 3394 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466418
Hutchison LJ, Mance J, Ann Goddard QC
[1998] EWCA Crim 639
England and Wales
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465032
Car park used as pedestrian route to shops is road by virtue of that use.
Times 11-Dec-1996
England and Wales
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.79204
The claimant challenged the policy of the respondent which differentiated between London black cabs and the claimant’s minicab service in the way they were allowed to make use of bus lanes.
Burton J
[2012] EWHC 1903 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462906
The defendant motorist was accused of driving with excess alcohol. There had been a difference in readings between two samples taken within a short time of each other.
Held: He should have been allowed an adjournment to bring his own expert witness to explain the discrepancy. A breath test taken only a short time after the one relied upon had produced a result which was lawful. The cases did not mean that it was not possible to contradict the findings of a blood test.
Tuckey LJ, Moses J
Times 02-Mar-2000, [2000] RTR 143
England and Wales
Cited – Nelson v Thompson 1985
. .
Cited – Breckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.84574
The person registered as the keeper is the person liable to pay a parking fine though the actual act of parking which gave rise to the fine was one carried out by the garage with whom the car had been left for repair.
Gazette 27-Nov-1996, Times 26-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 869, [1998] RTR 51, [1997] COD 155
England and Wales
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.87520
Passenger need not be ‘user’ of vehicle though acting with driver; claim on MIB.
Times 15-May-1996
England and Wales
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.81279
Remedy to challenge temporary road closure is limited to judicial review.
Remedy to challenge temporary road closure is limited to judicial review.
Gazette 17-Apr-1996, Times 25-Mar-1996
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
England and Wales
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.89820
‘Deposited on highway’ has wide meaning – includes vending barrows.
Gazette 22-Feb-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.89062
A vendor’s ‘hot chestnut’ stall was an ‘item deposited on highway’ and could be removed by the Council under the 1980 Act. Waite LJ said: ‘The verb ‘to deposit’ is a term of wide connotation, apt to describe any state of affairs in which one object is placed upon another. Like all words of wide import, it is liable to attract shades of meaning which, according to the context, indicate that the placement contemplated shall have a particular connotation . . It is therefore an expression to be judged in the light of its context, and, being so common a word, the number of differing contexts in which it is liable to occur is almost limitless. But unless a particular context otherwise dictates, it should be interpreted in the broad sense in which it is used in everyday speech. One of the consequences of its flexibility is that there may be cases in which it will be difficult to determine whether a particular placement has the characteristics of a deposit or not . . ‘
Waite LJ
Ind Summary 20-Mar-1995, [1995] RTR 32
England and Wales
Cited – Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Bromley Magistrates’ Court Admn 20-Mar-2013
Sewage had escaped from the company’s facilities. They now sought judicial review of their conviction under the 1990 Act, saying there had been no ‘deposit’ of sewage.
Held: The request for review failed: ‘the answer to the question whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.89063
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.
Independent 20-Apr-1995, Times 07-Apr-1995
Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 (1986 No 183) 3(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.78893
Guidelines on sentencing for alcohol and death related driving offences were of no relevance where drugs were involved on the part of the driver.
Ind Summary 19-Dec-1994, Times 10-Nov-1994, [1994] CLY 1196
England and Wales
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88517
It was proper for a court sentencing for careless driving to allow for the fatal consequences of the driving. As long as culpability remains a sentencing consideration, the court was entitled to make such an allowance.
Times 04-Feb-1999
England and Wales
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88668
On a prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1 of the 1988 Act, the fact that the driver was adversely affected by alcohol was a relevant circumstance in determining whether he was driving dangerously.’The fact (if it be so) that an accused has ingested a large quantity of alcoholic drink is a circumstance within the knowledge of the accused. Accordingly, the statute requires that ‘regard shall be had’ to it.’
Lord Taylor CJ
Times 07-Dec-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 388, [1995] 3 All ER 79, [1995] RTR 130
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v McBride 1961
Evidence that a driver had been drinking was admissible when the driver faced a charge of dangerous driving. . .
Cited – Phipps, Regina v CACD 14-Jan-2005
The appellant had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol. After complaints by the injured victim’s family he was further prosecuted for dangerous driving. He now appealed his conviction, having pleaded guilty when the judge failed to find an . .
Cited – Webster v Regina CACD 3-Mar-2006
The appellant challenged his conviction for aiding an abetting the causing of death by dangerous driving as a passenger. The driver had been drunk.
Held: The mere intoxication of the driver was not of itself and alone sufficient to establish . .
Cited – Milton v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 16-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, saying that his special skills as a trained police driver should have been allowed for. He had driven on a motorway at average speeds of 148mph.
Held: His appeal was allowed. The . .
Cited – Bannister, Regina v CACD 28-Jul-2009
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving. As a police officer he had driven at over 110 mph on a motorway in the wet, lost control and crashed. He said that the fact that he had undertaken the police advanced drivers’ course . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88345
Press campaign to have sentence increased was wholly wrong and misguided
Times 29-Dec-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88220
If one defendant claims a defence of duress from fear of the other’s driving, the other driver’s driving convictions are relevant and can be admitted in evidence. Evidence of the convictions of the other driver should have been admitted even though he did not give evidence because they were relevant. Knowledge of his character might well have coloured the jury’s deliberations and bolstered the credibility of Murray’s account. Unless there is simply no nexus whatever between the previous convictions sought to be adduced and the offence alleged against the accused, they should be admitted and admitted in these particular circumstances without any nice distinctions being drawn between the various individual offences recorded in the record.
Ind Summary 11-Jul-1994, Times 24-Jun-1994, [1995] RTR 239
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Randall (EP) CACD 21-Feb-2003
The defendant had been a co-accused on a charge of murder. He appealed saying the judge had incorrectly directed the jury on the relevance of his co-accused’s previous convictions for violence.
Held: The appeal was allowed. He should have been . .
Cited – Regina v Randall HL 18-Dec-2003
Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By . .
Cited – Regina v Southwark Coroner ex parte Fields Admn 30-Jan-1998
The deceased died after being hit by a policemen with his baton when being arrested. The verdict of misadventure was now challenged. The police officer said he had hit out in fear of imminent attack. It was said that the Coroner had permitted those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87397
A reason for not giving a specimen of breath remained valid even if not given at time.
Gazette 10-Feb-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.80024
The defence of necessity or duress of circumstance was available to a defendant in dangerous driving charge where sufficient cause could be shown. In this case the victim of a road rage attack with hammer was fleeing his attacker.
Times 10-Apr-1998
England and Wales
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.86149
Evidence of the presence of excess alcohol was admissible on a prosecution for causing death by driving without due care.
Times 12-May-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.87348
A diabetic who drove anticipating a diabetic attack was driving recklessly and his act constituted dangerous driving.
Gazette 02-Aug-1996, Times 16-Jul-1996, [1997] RTR 457
England and Wales
Cited – Milton v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 16-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, saying that his special skills as a trained police driver should have been allowed for. He had driven on a motorway at average speeds of 148mph.
Held: His appeal was allowed. The . .
Cited – Bannister, Regina v CACD 28-Jul-2009
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving. As a police officer he had driven at over 110 mph on a motorway in the wet, lost control and crashed. He said that the fact that he had undertaken the police advanced drivers’ course . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.87274
An altered vehicle excise licence displayed on a car parked on private land was not a fraudulent use of the licence, and no offence was committed until the vehicle went onto a public road.
Ind Summary 14-Mar-1994, Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 24-Feb-1994
Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 26(1)(c)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.87007
Driver using car aggressively causing death – very grave offence; 3 1/2 years.
Times 13-Mar-1997
England and Wales
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86538
Bogus but uncompleted insurance forms were illegal – might deceive motorist.
Ind Summary 15-May-1995
Road Traffic Act 1988 173(1)(c)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86072
The defendant’s non-understanding of breath test procedure when worse for drink was no defence.
Ind Summary 27-Nov-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.79985
Parties challenged the method used by the Royal and Sun Alliance insurance to calculate the cost of repairs to motor vehicles damaged in accidents. After conflicting decisions in County Courts, the issue was brought before the Commercial Court.
Held: The applications should be transferred and the court gave management directions.
Walker J
[2011] EWHC 2405 (Comm)
England and Wales
See Also – Coles and Others v Hetherton and Others ComC 15-Jun-2012
. .
See Also – Coles and Others v Hetherton and Others CA 20-Dec-2013
The claimants’ insurers disputed arrangements by the defendants’ insurers in motor accident claims which, they said artificially inflated the costs of repairs to the profit of the defendants’ insurers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444878
ECJ Road transport – Obligation to use recording equipment – Derogations for vehicles transporting materials – Meaning of ‘materials’ – Carriage of empty bottles in the vehicle of a wine and drinks merchant.
C-554/09, [2011] EUECJ C-554/09
European
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442301
New sentencing guidelines were handed down for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving whilst driving with excess alcohol. The definition and sentence for the offence had been changed. Lord Taylor CJ: ‘Drivers who drive after taking alcohol should understand that in bad cases they will lose their liberty for upwards of five years and in the very worst cases, if contested, sentences will be in the higher range of those now permitted by Parliament.’ and ‘We wish to stress that human life cannot be restored, nor can its loss be measured by the length of a prison sentence. We recognise that no term of months or years imposed on the offender can reconcile the family of a diseased victim to their loss, nor will it cure their anguish.’ and ‘where a driver had driven with selfish disregard for the safety of other road users or of his passengers of with a degree of recklessness, instead of the appropriate sentence being 2 years or more, sentences of upwards of 5 years would be appropriate.’
Ind Summary 31-Jan-1994, Gazette 02-Feb-1994, Gazette 26-Jan-1994, [1994] 15 CAR (S) 640
England and Wales
Reconsidered – Regina v Boswell CACD 1984
The court gave guidelines for sentencing for the offence of causing death by reckless driving. . .
Cited – Regina v Pimm 1994
The offence of motor manslaughter is generally reserved for situations where on the facts there is a very high risk of the driving resulting in death. . .
Cited – Regina v Pettipher CACD 1989
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.88016
The duty to demonstrate that a car is properly insured and has an MOT certificate remains the responsibility of the actual driver.
Gazette 17-Mar-1999, [1999] RTR 40
England and Wales
Appeal from – Director of Public Prosecutions v Kavaz Admn 25-Nov-1997
. .
Appealed to – Director of Public Prosecutions v Kavaz Admn 25-Nov-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.80119
[2011] UKUT 134 (AAC)
Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433514
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that there was insufficient evidence to found the conviction.
Collins J
[2011] EWHC 758 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431754
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.
Gazette 23-Mar-2000
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
England and Wales
Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.82397
[2010] EWCA Crim 107, [2010] RTR 23
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428643
Two of those participating in a march demonstrating against cuts in the education budget, left that march to join the Occupy Movement’s demonstration in Trafalgar Square against the excesses of capitalism. They were, convicted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court of breaching conditions imposed under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 in respect of the route the march should take. They said that they had left the march and were on a new route of their own.
Held: The District Judge was right to find that they had not left the March, and: ‘Those participating in the public procession were entitled to leave it, but they were not entitled to move from the route of the procession whilst they remained as participants in it. I’
The Court said: ‘It is important to note that the conditions imposed pursuant to the power confirmed under section 12(1) are conditions which relate, as the section indicates, to a particular public procession. ‘Public procession’ is defined in section 16 of the Act to mean a procession in a public place. That it relates to a particular public procession is made clear by the identification within section 12(1) of the grounds upon which conditions may be imposed. The circumstances and the route on the basis of which a police officer’s belief of risk must reasonably be founded route relate to a particular public procession.’
Moses LJ and Gloster J
[2013] EWHC 195 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Powlesland v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 9-Dec-2013
The defendant apealed against his conviction for having taken part in a public procession, a a Critical Mass Cycle Ride, knowingly in breach of conditions attached to it by the Police. The defendant had argued that the ride was not a procession.
Cited – Jones and Others v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 6-Nov-2019
Distributed Demonstration not within 1986 Act
The claimants, seeking to demonstrate support for the extinction rebellion movement by demonstrating in London, now challenged an order made under the 1986 Act restricting their right to demonstrate.
Held: The XRAU was not a public assembly at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.471020
Burnett J
[2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427939
ECJ (Approximation Of Laws) Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC – Automobile Liability Insurance – Determining liability regime for claims arising from motor vehicle traffic – Limiting the right to compensation from the insurance required based on the contribution to the damage of one of the drivers responsible for the accident – Unable to determine the causal contribution to the occurrence of the two conductors-Responsibility for risk.
C-484/09, [2010] EUECJ C-484/09, [2011] EUECJ C-484/09
European
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427314
The applicant had unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He had been stopped randomly to check his documents and the road worthiness of the older car.
Held: The appeal failed. May LJ said: ‘Whether it be under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or under a duty at common law, a police officer has the power, provided he or she does not act capriciously or in bad faith, or provided there is no malpractice or oppression or opprobrious behaviour, to stop a motorist on the road. If thereafter there is a reasonable suspicion of drinking, a breath test may be administered.’
May LJ
[2004] EWHC 100 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Beard v Wood 1980
The court discussed the power of a constable to stop a driver.
Held: Provided the officer was acting in good faith the statutory powers given to him he need have no grounds for stopping a driver. Nothing in the section required the prosecutor . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Gwent v Dash 1986
In the absence of malpractice, oppression, caprice or opprobrious behaviour, there is no restriction on the stopping of motorists by a police officer in the execution of his duty and subsequent requirement of a breath test if the officer then and . .
Cited – Steel v Goacher QBD 1985
Griffiths LJ discussed the lawfulness of a police officer’s stopping of a motorist, and said: ‘It should, however, be stated that the police officer was acting within the execution of his duty by virtue of his power at common law and not by virtue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425318
Lloyd, Richards, Sullivan LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1011
England and Wales
Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424784
Laws, Smith, Rimer LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 752
England and Wales
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420401
[2010] UKUT 63 (AAC)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.417494
Sullian LJ, Lloyd Jones J
[2010] EWHC 288 (Admin), [2010] RTR 31, [2010] 2 All ER 791, (2010) 174 JP 329
England and Wales
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416387
Sir Anthony May P, Langstaff J
[2010] EWHC 883 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408623
The Local Authority appealed against the rejection of an allegation of speeding, on the basis that that the speed limit sign, which was designed to be illuminated, was not in fact lit.
Held: The appeal failed.
Toulson LJ, Owen J
[2010] EWHC 669 (Admin)
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994
England and Wales
Cited – Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 27-Jan-2011
The driver appealed against his conviction for exceeding the relevant maximum speed on a Special Road, the A55 in North Wales. The speed limit signs were designed to be illuminated, but the lamps were not working. Instructions had been given not to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408627
Mummery, Richards, Rimer LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 184
England and Wales
Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.402940
[2010] EWHC 343 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.402591
Simon J
[2009] EWHC 3595 (Admin), [2010] RTR 18
England and Wales
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401943
[2010] EWHC 134 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396491
[2010] EWHC 52 (Admin), [2010] RTR 29
England and Wales
Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393020
pill LJ, Cranston J
[2009] EWHC 1325 (Admin)
Private Hire Vehicles (London) (Operators’ Licences) Regulations 2000
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347250
Toulson LJ, Forbes J
[2008] EWHC 3006 (Admin), (2009) 172 JP 17
England and Wales
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.343956
QBD A local authority has no power to close a road to control pollution from motor vehicles. Air pollution danger from traffic was not a sufficient ‘likelihood of danger.’
Ind Summary 29-Jan-1996, Times 29-Dec-1995
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 14
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.86767
The defendant appealed against his sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. He had suffered a hypoglycemic attack, but had not stopped. Expert evidence that he may not have been aware of the attack appeared to have been rejected by the jury.
Held: The highly exceptional circumstances of this case reduce the Appellant’s culpability to an extent which brings the offence significantly below the sentencing range which would normally apply in a case of driving whilst conscious of a significant medical impairment.
[2009] EWCA Crim 921, [2009] RTR 32
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.343900
The defendant faced trial for driving whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. On a pre-trial review, the prosecution had applied for the evidence of the analyst to be given under the hearsay provisions, on the basis that she was living abroad. She had not been warned and it was not reasonably practicable to secure her attendance. At trial, the deputy district judge considered that he was bound by that ruling and refused to hear further argument on the issue of admissibility. One aspect of the case stated was whether the district judge was correct.
Held: The court allowed the appeal, applying sections 8A and 8B of the 1980 Act. There was no question of the pre-trial ruling binding the deputy judge in relation to the trial. At the trial very different considerations obtained compared with the pre-trial hearing, in particular relating to the attendance by the analyst and securing her evidence since – by then – the prosecution could well have obtained her attendance.
Leveson LJ, Sweeney J
[2009] EWHC 440 (Admin), [2009] 1 WLR 2530, (2009) 173 JP 274
Road Traffic Act 2006 5(2)(a), Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 8A 8B
England and Wales
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Chorley Justices and Forrest Admn 8-Jun-2006
The prosecutor applied for an order to require the magistrates to state a case. He faced a charge of driving with excess alcohol. He pleaded not guilty. There were several adjournments, and a considerable delay. At the trial, and with no . .
Cited – Jones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area Admn 12-Mar-2010
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates to adjourn a case where, on the day before, a differently constitued bench had refused an adjournment requested by the prosecution. On the first occasion the prosecutor had not . .
Cited – Bielecki v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Aug-2011
The court had delivered a draft judgment which counsel said was based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the case she had presented. Counsel now suggested that the matter should be referred to a two judge divisional court. That was refused. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.323733
The claimant had been involved in a monthly cycle ride through central London which had continued for many years. The ride took place without any central organisation and without any route being pre-planned. They objected to being required to apply for a licence and to file a route with the Commissioner under section 11. The question was whether each ride was the same procession, and whether it was ‘commonly or customarily’ held.
Held: Mr Kay’s appeal succeeded. A regular procession need not follow the same route each time. The fact that no person or persons organised the procession meant that no person held any duty under the Act, and section 11 had no application.
Lord Rodger said: ‘if Parliament had actually intended to use the Public Order Act 1986 to outlaw processions of that kind without a predetermined route, then it would not have done so by a side wind in a section creating a system of notification: it would have done so specifically. Section 13 contains a carefully crafted measure which allows councils, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to prohibit public processions in certain specified circumstances. Where the Act contains a specific provision prohibiting certain processions, there is no room for implying into another provision a requirement which would have the effect of prohibiting a different type of procession by exposing the organisers to a criminal conviction and fine.’
Lord Phillips said: ‘Critical Mass is not an organisation but the name given to a recurrent event. It takes place in central London on the evening of the last Friday of every month, as it has done since April 1994. Similar events take place on the last Friday of every month in many other cities throughout the world. Critical Mass starts at the same location, (the South Bank near the National Theatre) at the same time (6 pm). It is featured in Time Out magazine. It is in the nature of Critical Mass that there is no fixed, settled or predetermined route, end-time or destination; where Critical Mass goes, where and what time it ends are all things which are chosen by the actions of the participants on the day.’
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2008] UKHL 69, [2008] 1 WLR 2723, [2009] RTR 16, [2009] HRLR 10, [2009] 2 All ER 935
England and Wales
At First Instance – Kay v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn 27-Jun-2006
For many years and in many large cities, once a month, cyclists had gathered en masse to cycle through the city in a ‘Critical Mass’ demonstration. There was no central organisation. Clarification was sought as to whether the consent of the police . .
Appeal from – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Kay CA 21-May-2007
The commissioner appealed against a judgment that a mass cycle ride held regularly but over different routes did not first require notice to be given.
Held: The commissioner’s appeal succeeded. The fact that the route changed meant that the . .
Cited – Flockhart v Robinson 1950
A challenge was made to the organising of a procession. Its route was determined by Mr Flockhart as he went along.
Held: For the purposes of section 3(4) of the 1936 Act, a procession ‘is a body of persons moving along a route’ and that, by . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) HL 13-Mar-2003
Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention
The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act.
Held: The challenge failed. The court was to . .
Cited – Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
Cited – Powlesland v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 9-Dec-2013
The defendant apealed against his conviction for having taken part in a public procession, a a Critical Mass Cycle Ride, knowingly in breach of conditions attached to it by the Police. The defendant had argued that the ride was not a procession.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278297
A heavy crane had toppled from a road. The crane owners said that the highway authority were responsible for the poor condition of the road.
Held: The action failed. The evidence did not support the assertion that the accident arose from a road insufficiently maintained.
Reddihough HHJ
[2016] EWHC 1767 (QB)
Highways Act 1980 41(1) 58(2) 329(1)
England and Wales
Cited – West Sussex County Council v Russell CA 12-Feb-2010
The council appealed against a finding that it had failed in its duty to keep the highway safe leading to an accident in which the claimant was severely injured. The road was narrow, and a significant drop had developed by the edge of the road. The . .
Cited – Goodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
Cited – Rider v Rider CA 1973
The plaintiff was a passenger in a car which her husband was driving and which collided with a van. The husband had been driving too fast. The edge of the tarmac on the road abutted grass verges at a lower level and the edge had been inadequately . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.567639
Waller VP CA, Carnwath, Wilson LJJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1313, [2009] PIQR P8, [2009] RTR 11, [2009] 1 CMLR 45, [2009] Eu LR 383, [2009] CP Rep 15
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278672
Prosecutor’s appeal against dismissal of charge of driving without insurance.
[2008] EWHC 1814 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271233
[2008] EWHC 1443 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270606
[2008] NICA 10
Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
Northern Ireland
Cited – Taylor v Rajan 2-Jan-1974
The defendant had consumed alcohol so that the alcohol level was 102 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. An appeal was heard as to whether there existed special reasons for not disqualifying him.
Held: The court considered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266763
The defendant driver had been stopped and required to provide a specimen of breath. She failed to do so, and gave no reason. At trial she produced nedical evidence, accepted by the magistrates, that she suffered asthma and a hyperventilation syndrome, but she was convicted after the magistrates concluded that she should have told the police of the reason.
Held: It would be wrong to import a requirement that was not set out in the statute. The appeal succeeded.
Moses LJ, Sullivan J
[2008] EWHC 305 (Admin), Times 10-Mar-2008
Not to be followed – Teape v Godfrey 1986
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.266039
[2006] EWHC 662 (Admin)
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263470
Justices to seek guidance from clerk on failing to provide specimen of breath.
Times 05-Apr-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.80041
Appeal by defendant against decision of magistrates to adjourn trial to allow attendance of prosecution witness.
[2007] EWHC 2005 (Admin)
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.259205
Keene LJ, Poole J
[2005] EWHC 3535 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258661
The court was asked whether the UK provisions for the Motor Insurers bureau met the requirements of the European Directive.
Held: The UK had failed to implement the directive properly by imposing a three year limit on claims when no such limitation was allowed by the directive. That failure arose not from any policy, but mere and inexcusable inadvertence. The breach was sufficiently serious to leave the Secretary of State liable for damages.
Flaux J
[2007] EWHC 1268 (QB), Times 15-Jun-2007, [2008] 2 WLR 234
England and Wales
Appeal from – Byrne (A Minor) v The Motor Insurers Bureau and Another CA 22-May-2008
The claimant said that the rejection of his claim against the MIB was out ouf time under the MIB scheme, where, had the claim been against the driver, the claim would have succeeded.
Held: The Bureau’s appeal failed. European law imposed a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253212
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving. The failure of the police to serve him with a notice of intended prosecution invalidated the conviction. The police replied that there was no need for such a notice because there had been an accident. The driver had been stopped but had then driven off. A police officer had had to place her hands on the bonnet to balance herself when avoiding it, and she had lost her grip on the door. The defendant said that the issue of whether there had been an accident should have been decided by a jury.
Held: The case of Seward could be distinguished, because the question of whether there had been an accident related not to the offence itself, but to the procedure involved, and ‘the reference to ‘court’ in what is now s2(3) of the 1988 Act means the judge when the case is proceeding in the crown court. The issues which the judge is required to decide under that subsection will plainly involve issues of fact. Other issues of fact can arise under section 1(1), for example whether the defendant was warned at the time of the offence that he might be prosecuted e.g. a police officer says he was warned but the defendant says he was not. The subsection is silent as to who decides such questions, but it seems to us that the whole of sections 1 and 2 are directed to the need to ensure that as far as possible defendants are not taken by surprise in relation to motoring offences to which s1 of the Act applies. What is required is that by one means or another they should have notice of the relevant event in sufficient time to be able to recall it themselves and recall it to others who may be able to give evidence on their behalf.’
Baker LJ, Openshaw J, Sir Richard Curtis
[2007] EWCA Crim 926
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 2
England and Wales
Cited – Rex v Bolkis CCA 1932
The defendant complained that a jury had not been asked a question of fact, namely whether his name and address could not be discovered withut due diligence. The section had a proviso that failure to comply with the section was not a bar to . .
Cited – Regina v Seward 1970
The section in the 1967Act required as a precondition to a request for a breath specimen that an accident had occurred. The defendant complained that this was an issue of fact, but had been decided by the deputy chairman and not the jury.
Cited – Regina v Morris 1972
Whether the particular facts of a case amount to an accident is a question of law. In a case of disputed facts under s2(2) of the 1967 Act it is for the jury to decide the facts and apply to the facts found the judge’s direction as to the meaning of . .
Cited – Regina v Stacey CA 1982
The defendant had been arrested for driving whilst unfit through drink. He was warned three hours later that he might be prosecuted for reckless driving. In fact he was not charged with any offence relating to drink. When tried for reckless driving . .
Cited – Fenton v J Thorley and Co Ltd HL 1903
A workman who ruptured himself by an act of over-exertion in trying to turn a wheel was held to have suffered an injury ‘by accident.’ The act of turning the wheel was not in itself an accident. But the injury which the man sustained while carrying . .
Cited – Chief Constable of West Midlands Police v Billingham 1979
Bridge LJ considered the meaning of the word ‘accident’, and, after saying that there had been many authorities for different stautory and contractual contexts, said: ‘It is, in my judgment, a word which has a perfectly well understood meaning in . .
Cited – Gibson v Dalton CA 1980
The requirement to notify a defendant of the possibility of a prosecution is to allow him to preserve any necessary evidence. . .
Cited – Bemner v Westwater HCJ 1993
A police officer was driving in the opposite direction to the accused. He came round a bend in the road to face two vehicles, one was driven by the accused overtaking the other vehicle. He was in the police officer’s path. The officer braked, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251506
Collins J
[2007] EWHC 552 (Admin)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847& 45, Road Traffic Act 1988 143
England and Wales
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251148
[2006] EWHC 3429 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249154
[2006] EWHC 3328 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249141
Challenge to accuracy of speed gun.
Waller LJ, Treacy J
[2006] EWHC 3137 (Admin)
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 89, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 20
England and Wales
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247335
Whether a motor-cycle which was left on a pavement, but with both wheels off the floor was ‘parked with a wheel on part of a road other than a carriageway’.
Tuckey LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1060
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244477
[2006] EWCA Civ 974
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243359
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor should have put in evidence the results of the roadside breath test. Mitting J referred to the case of Badkin: ‘But nothing in the judgment of Glidewell LJ leads to the conclusion that in every case the prosecution must obtain from the manufacturers an analysis of the proportion of alcohol in the specimen provided in the roadside breath test and put that result in evidence. That conclusion, I believe at least tentatively, is reinforced by the current wording of Section 6 and 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003), which refers respectively to ‘preliminary tests’ at the roadside, and ‘specimens of breath for analysis’ in the police station or hospital. Only the latter need be put in evidence.’
Maurice Kay LJ, Mitting J
[2006] EWHC 1753 (Admin)
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998 15(2)
England and Wales
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
Cited – Badkin v Director of Public Prosecutions 1988
The defendant driver had provided two specimens of breath at the police station. The device used failed to provide a printout and the constable operating it decided that it could be unreliable. He required the defendant to provide a specimen of . .
Cited – Breckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . .
Cited – Smith v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide the roadside breath test figures.
Held: The appeal failed, and was indeed hopeless. Pill LJ said: ‘The specimens of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243308
For many years and in many large cities, once a month, cyclists had gathered en masse to cycle through the city in a ‘Critical Mass’ demonstration. There was no central organisation. Clarification was sought as to whether the consent of the police was required under the 1986 Act.
Held: Whether there was anybody who might be prosecuted for leading a ride taking place without an order would be a matter for the police in each case. The court could not anticipate that. Nor could it be said that the purpose of the ride was not one governed by the 1986 Act. It was suggested that the procession had acquired the status of being a customary procession, however: ‘the denial of a collective intention falling within s.11(1) may not be easy to reconcile with the continuity of qualifying intention needed to attract the protection of s.11(2). Either will afford a defence, but it is hard to see how both can. ‘ There had now been 140 such rides, and it was not proper to deny that they had become common or customary, and no notice was required.
Sedley LJ contrasted the control powers in ss12 and 13, applying to any procession, notifiable or not, if the circumstances indicated a material threat of disorder or intimidation, with the purpose of s11 which was to permit the policing of processions, whether or not they posed such a threat.
Sedley LJ, Gray J
[2006] EWHC 1536 (Admin), Times 30-Jun-2006, [2006] Po LR 111, [2006] RTR 39, [2006] ACD 86
Cited – Flockhart v Robinson 1950
A challenge was made to the organising of a procession. Its route was determined by Mr Flockhart as he went along.
Held: For the purposes of section 3(4) of the 1936 Act, a procession ‘is a body of persons moving along a route’ and that, by . .
Appeal from – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Kay CA 21-May-2007
The commissioner appealed against a judgment that a mass cycle ride held regularly but over different routes did not first require notice to be given.
Held: The commissioner’s appeal succeeded. The fact that the route changed meant that the . .
At First Instance – Kay v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis HL 26-Nov-2008
The claimant had been involved in a monthly cycle ride through central London which had continued for many years. The ride took place without any central organisation and without any route being pre-planned. They objected to being required to apply . .
Cited – Powlesland v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 9-Dec-2013
The defendant apealed against his conviction for having taken part in a public procession, a a Critical Mass Cycle Ride, knowingly in breach of conditions attached to it by the Police. The defendant had argued that the ride was not a procession.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242879
The bankrupt had been entitled to a valuable vehicle registration mark ‘AMR 1T’. He sold it to a creditor, the claimant to clear that debt. The trustee now said that the purported assignment was ineffective.
Held: ‘VRMs are assigned to vehicles, not to registered owners or other individuals. The Secretary of State has power to assign or re-assign a VRM under Section 23(2) but a vehicle owner cannot require him to do so. The only relevant right which a vehicle owner has in relation to the transfer of a VRM from one vehicle to another is to seek the exercise in his favour of the Secretary of State’s power under Section 26. ‘ The right was not a chose in action capable of assignment. Had he been entitled to the VRM, any assignment would have been an unlawful preference.
Sir Francis Ferris
[2006] EWHC 833 (Ch), Times 28-Jun-2006
Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 23 26, Insolvency Act 1986 340(3)
England and Wales
Distinguished – In re Fry ChD 1946
A settlor executed a transfer of shares but failed to obtain the consent of the Treasury under the Regulations. The transferees argued that the testator had executed documents which were appropriate to the subject matter of the gift, namely the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240438
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that though the officers suspected him of having consumed alcohol, they asked him whether he had been drinking without cautioning him, and that no print out from the Intoximeter having been produced, there was no evidence on which he could be convicted. The officer gave evidence not of his reading of the Intoximeter but of the print out.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Drinking itself is not a criminal offence. At the point when the officer asked him whether he had been drinking paragraphs 10 and 11 of the PACE code were not engaged. The fact that he had been drinking allowed the officer then to require the breath test. As to the complaint about the admission of the officer’s evidence in the absence of the printout: ‘oral evidence was given by the officer who carried out the procedure, evidence which was supported by the other officer who was present throughout. There was no challenge to that evidence in cross-examination. No objection was taken to its admissibility at the time and no challenge, indeed, to its correctness.’
Richards LJ said of the arguments advanced for the appellant: ‘In conclusion, I am satisfied that the there is no merit in the arguments advanced by Miss Calder in relation to the justices’ findings concerning the breath test procedure. Fortunately the justices were not misled by such arguments but dealt with the case sensibly and robustly, making findings properly open to them on the unchallenged evidence they had heard.’
Richards LJ, David Clarke J
[2006] EWHC 560 (Admin)
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
See Also – Sneyd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Jul-2005
The defendant wished to argue a point to overturn the decision in Chesters. Accordingly the matter was adjourned for hearing by a two judge court. . .
Cited – Owen v Chesters 1985
The court considered the means of proving the reading from a breath test meter: ‘It was clearly the intention of the legislature, in enacting subsection (5), that the defendant should be provided in advance of the hearing with the information . .
Cited – Thom v Director of Public Prosecutions 1993
The defendant was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. No print-out was produced but there was oral evidence from the officers who carried out the procedure that the machine was calibrated properly and working properly and what the readings . .
Cited – Denneny v Harding 1986
Although a police officer was able to give evidence about what he saw on the Intoximeter display panel, the evidence of the officer in the case went no further than the evidence of the readings of alcohol in the appellant’s breath. In order to prove . .
Cited – Mayon v Director of Public Prosecutions 1988
In the absence of evidence of calibration of an Intoximeter either before or after the second specimen was produced, there had been a failure to prove the precondition that the machine was working satisfactorily. . .
Cited – Greenway v Director of Public Prosecutions 1993
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The officer had given evidence that at the time of the test all of the readings showed that the machine was working properly. That evidence was not challenged by the . .
Cited – Bielecki v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Aug-2011
The court had delivered a draft judgment which counsel said was based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the case she had presented. Counsel now suggested that the matter should be referred to a two judge divisional court. That was refused. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240062
[2006] EWHC 314 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239150
The defendant wished to argue a point to overturn the decision in Chesters. Accordingly the matter was adjourned for hearing by a two judge court.
Walker J
[2005] EWHC 1781 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Owen v Chesters 1985
The court considered the means of proving the reading from a breath test meter: ‘It was clearly the intention of the legislature, in enacting subsection (5), that the defendant should be provided in advance of the hearing with the information . .
See Also – Sneyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 24-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that though the officers suspected him of having consumed alcohol, they asked him whether he had been drinking without cautioning him, and that no print out . .
Cited – Bielecki v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Aug-2011
The court had delivered a draft judgment which counsel said was based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the case she had presented. Counsel now suggested that the matter should be referred to a two judge divisional court. That was refused. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229744
The prosecutor appealed dismissal of the charge of driving a heavy commercial vehicle on a road which was subject to a maximum weight restriction in breach of the 1984 Act. The company denied that it had any knowledge of the actual route taken by its driver.
Held: The offence involved use by the employer when he caused or mermitted the use. It was in effect a joint enterprise by the employer and employee.
Kennedy LJ, Walker J
[2005] EWHC 1627 (Admin)
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
England and Wales
Cited – Alphacell Ltd v Woodward HL 3-May-1972
The defendant operated a paper manufacturing plant which involved maintaining tanks of polluting liquid near the river, so that pollution would occur if they overflowed. There were pumps which ought normally to have drawn off the liquid and . .
Cited – Ross Hillman v Bond 1974
An employer can be found to be causing or permitting an employee to overload a vehicle when he was acting in the course of his employment even though the employer is unaware of the employee’s exact activities. . .
Cited – West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service v Lex Vehicle Leasing Ltd QBD 9-Feb-1995
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Jones CA 2000
A company Managing Director had arranged for a dockside crane to be adapted, so that with the jaws of the grab bucket open bags could be attached to hooks fitted within the bucket. Jones was in the hold of a ship loading bags onto the hooks when the . .
Cited – Vehicle Inspectorate v Nuttall HL 18-Mar-1999
An operator accused of permitting contraventions of the drivers hours need only be shown to have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent contraventions by his drivers. A willful failure to inspect tachograph charts can amount to prima facie . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229011
[2005] EWHC 1395 (Admin)
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228891
The magistrates stated a case where the police officer requiring a breath speciment, had not allowed a wait of 20 minutes where the defendant had recently eaten a ‘tic-tac’, contrary to the procedure.
Kennedy LJ, Crane J
[2005] EWHC 1533 (Admin)
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
England and Wales
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v John Kay QBD 4-Mar-1998
The court considered a decision by Justices to exclude evidence under section 8 of the 1984 Act where a police officer had allegedly failed to follow the guidance in relation to a roadside breath test.
Held: The procedure was not required by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228893
The defendant was the registered keeper of a vehicle recorded as having exceeded the speed limit. He was required to identify the driver. He responded saying that it was one of six fleet vehicles and could not say who was driving it at the time. He appealed his conviction.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The letter accompanying and information cross referenced from the letter provided all the information requested. However the form required him to name the driver, and that he had not done. He could not however do so: ‘this conviction was, in large measure, based on an erroneous judgment as to the matter of the form and that, in those circumstances, it seems to me only right that this appeal should be allowed. The matter should be returned to the deputy district judge with a direction to acquit. ‘
May LJ, Nelson J
[2004] EWHC 236 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Boss v Measures QBD 1990
The defendant was prosecuted for having failed to provide information on a form when he had responded by telephone. . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Broomfield QBD 2002
If a notice is in reasonable form and requires the information to be given in a particular form then that form must be used. A purpose of seeking the information in section 172 of the 1988 Act was to enable proof of certain matters, including the . .
Cited – Flegg v Justices of the Peace for the New Forest Local Justice Area Sitting at Lyndhurst Admn 21-Feb-2006
The defendant sought judicial review of the refusal by the magistrates to state a case. He was convicted for failing to identify the driver of a motor cycle of which he was a registered keeper which had been caught by a speed camera. Either of two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226859
The applicant had paid the congestion charge to allow her to drive into London, but had given the incorrect registration mark.
Held: The mistake was not a mistke which would establish a ground to challenge the penalty, but the adjudicator had been wrong to consider that he had no discretion to accept the circumstance as mitigation. He did have that discretion, and should have exercised it. The scheme was not clear, and its meaning could only be derived by anticipating what might have been wanted. The case did not give grounds for saying that the same result would always obtain, particularly in the case of repeated errors. If Transport for London had a policy for the exercise of the discretion, it was right that those who might be affected by it should know of it.
Burnton J
[2005] EWHC 896 (Admin), Times 25-May-2005, [2005] RTR 370
Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Order 2001
England and Wales
Cited – Walmsley, Regina (on the Application of) v Lane and Another CA 17-Nov-2005
The defendant had successfully appealed her fine after giving the wrong car number to the congestion charge system.
Held: When the driver appealed to the adjudicator’s discretion, she could submit anything which might be relevant. Where the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224949
The claimant sought damages after a road traffic accident. The judge heard evidence from the claimant’s in person and from a conflicting expert’s report. He preferred the evidence of the claimants which he found to be blameless and honest. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no rule requiring the court to accept an expert’s evidence over that of a lay witness. Our system is one of trial by judge, not by expert witness. The judge had been open and clear as to why he made his findings.
Brooke VP CA, Arden, Longmore LJJ
Times 19-Jan-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 277, [2005] 1 WLR 2751
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223680
The claimant’s husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe.
Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users to ensure that all or any trunk roads would be salted in freezing conditions. It is the primary responsibility of motorists to take care for their own safety and that of their passengers and other road users, and there was no evidence that the deceased had relied on an expectation that the road had been salted. Appeal dismissed.
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice May Lord Justice Thomas
Times 15-Nov-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 1440
England and Wales
Cited – Goodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
Cited – Cross v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council CA 27-Jun-1997
The Council’s duty to maintain a highway is not absolute. It must take reasonable steps to prevent or clear ice forming on pathway. Lord Justice Evans analysed the application of Section 41 to a situation which arose from ice and snow. In any case . .
Cited – Haydon v Kent County Council CA 1978
Impacted snow and ice had built up on a steep, narrow, made-up footpath from Monday to Thursday during a short wintry spell. The plaintiff slipped and broke her ankle. The highway authority operated a system of priorities. Their resources were fully . .
Cited – Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Appeal from – Sandhar, Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions QBD 19-Jan-2004
The claimant asserted a common law duty on the respondent to maintain a roadway free of frost.
Held: No such common law duty existed. Where parliament has conferred a discretionary power, ‘ . . the minimum preconditions for basing a duty of . .
Cited – Stovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
Cited – Bird v Pearce CA 1979
The plaintiff was a passenger in a car on a major road which who was injured in a collision with a car which emerged from a minor road. The driver of the second car, who was agreed (as between the two cars) to be 90% responsible, joined the County . .
Cited – Capital and Counties Plc and Another v Hampshire County Council; Etc CA 20-Mar-1997
Three cases were brought against fire services after what were said to be negligent responses to call outs. On one, the fire brigade was called to a fire at office premises in Hampshire. The fire triggered the operation of a heat-activated sprinkler . .
Cited – Larner v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council CA 20-Dec-2000
The duty on a local authority to promote road safety did not remove from them the discretion as to how that duty was to be implemented. A claim that the authority had failed to place certain signage, and that an accident had occurred which might not . .
Cited – Mercer v South Eastern and Chatham Railway Companies’ Managing Committee KBD 1922
A claimant was knocked down by a train when he went through an unlocked gate onto the railway line. The defendants were held liable, because it was their practice, known to the plaintiff, to keep the gate locked when trains were passing, but the . .
Cited – Merrett v John RH Babb CA 15-Feb-2001
The applicant had been employed as a surveyor by a firm which had subsequently become insolvent. The firm’s run off professional indemnity insurance had lapsed. He had provided the negligent survey, and he was sued in person.
Held: He was . .
Cited – Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
Cited – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
Cited – OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport QBD 22-Jul-1997
Coastguard Not liable in Negligence
Eight children with a teacher and two instructors set off on a canoeing trip but did not return. They got into difficulties at sea. Two became separated from the rest. The canoes capsized and sank. Some tried to swim ashore. Two more members became . .
Cited – Kent v Griffiths and Others (No 2) CA 10-Feb-2000
An ambulance service could be liable in negligence in respect of its response to an emergency call-out where for no good reason there was an unreasonable delay in responding, and the servivice had accepted the call. The ambulance service was . .
Cited – Michael Alexander Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd, World Boxing Organisation Incorporated CA 19-Dec-2000
The claimant was seriously injured in a professional boxing match governed by rules established by the defendant’s rules. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. By the time he received resuscitation . .
Appealed to – Sandhar, Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions QBD 19-Jan-2004
The claimant asserted a common law duty on the respondent to maintain a roadway free of frost.
Held: No such common law duty existed. Where parliament has conferred a discretionary power, ‘ . . the minimum preconditions for basing a duty of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219323
Ward, Potter, May LJJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 1527
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218436
[2002] EWCA Civ 1058
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217349
The applicant councils were host within their area the Clacton-On – sea Airshow, and sought an injunction against the world at large to prevent them causing disruption by the parking of mobile homes and similar on roads in the area
Knowles J
[2016] EWHC 2050 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.569081
A private company car park, where there was no proof of use by the public, was not a public road, and a driver could not be convicted of dangerous driving whilst in it. There must be evidence that the public actually utilised premises before a court can conclude that they are a ‘public place’. It is not sufficient to say that the public could have access if they were so inclined.
Times 24-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 808, [1999] RTR 353
England and Wales
Cited – May v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Apr-2005
Whether the car park where the driving took place was a ‘public place’ within the meaning of section 3.
Held: The appeal failed.
Laws LJ set out the following propositions as accurately summarising the relevant legal principles:
a. . .
Cited – Richardson v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 28-Feb-2019
Private Car park was not a public plae.
The defendant appealed from his conviction for being drunk in charge of a vehicle in a public place. The place was marked private but allowed for paring for designated businesses.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The phrase public phrase had to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.85567
[2004] EWHC 1937 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200007
The claimant fell into a ditch by a path on the highway in the dark. She appealed a finding of no liability on the highway authority.
Held: The authority’s responsibility was as to the surface structures of the road way and not as to the layout.
Potter, Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Carnwath
[2004] EWCA Civ 1016, Times 14-Oct-2004
England and Wales
Cited – Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
Cited – Goodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
Cited – Department for Transport, Environment and the Regions v Mott Macdonald Ltd and others CA 27-Jul-2006
Claims arose from accidents caused by standing water on roadway surfaces after drains had not been cleared by the defendants over a long period of time. The Department appealed a decision giving it responsibility under a breach of statutory duty . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199571
The defendant appealed a conviction for driving with excess alcohol. She said she had not first been cautioned when interviewed after an accident and that her admission that she had been driving should not have been allowed in evidence.
Held: That admission had properly been admitted. An expert for the defence had said that the intoximeter device had been modified in answer to criticisms of its inability to differentiate the presence of mouth alcohol. The device was not the same as that which has been approved, the results of its use cannot be admissible even where it was substantially like an approved device, and even if its performance is the same as that of an approved device. Since it had been modified, it was no longer an approved device. However if the judge had accepted that it was not an approved device, the reading could not have been admitted.
[2004] EWHC 278 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Breckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.197971
The claimant sought damages for increased road noise resulting from traffic control measures taken by the respondent.
Held: The defendants action to strike out the claim could not succeed. They had not shown that the claim was unarguable, however difficult were the prospects of success.
Mr Justice Collins
[2004] EWHC 970 (QB)
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited – Hatton and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jul-2003
More Night Flights No Infringement of Family Life
The claimants complained that the respondent had acted to infringe their rights. They were residents living locally to Heathrow Airport. They claimed the respondent had increased the number of night flights, causing increased noise, but without . .
Cited – Anufrijeva v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Mar-2002
Three asylum-seekers brought claims of breach of their Article 8 rights. One complained of a local authority’s failure to provide accommodation to meet special needs, the other two of maladministration and delay in the handling of their asylum . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva HL 26-Jun-2003
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several . .
Cited – Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196629
(Judgment) Directive 91/439/EEC – Mutual recognition of driving licences – Residence requirement – Article 8(4) – Effects of withdrawal or cancellation of a previous driving licence – Recognition of a new driving licence issued by another Member State
C-476/01, [2004] EUECJ C-476/01, [2004] ECR I-5205
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196660
[2004] ScotHC 19
Scotland
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195189
[2004] EWCA Civ 250
England and Wales
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194416