Cuns, Regina (on The Application of) v Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court: Admn 4 Mar 2016

Application for permission to apply for judicial review, heard as a rolled-up hearing with considerable speed in circumstances where the disqualification of the claimant from driving after a conviction in relation to a drink drive offence meant that he wanted an interim suspension of the disqualification. The defendant claimed to have a phobia of needles, and said this was a proper reason for refusing to give a sample of blood.
Held: Refused.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 748 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.567931

Regina v Liverpool Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Ellison: QBD 1990

Bingham LJ said: ‘If any criminal court at any time has cause to suspect that a prosecutor may be manipulating or using the procedures of the court in order to oppress or unfairly to prejudice a defendant before the court, I have no doubt that it is the duty of the court to inquire into the situation and ensure that its procedure is not being so abused. Usually no doubt such inquiry will be prompted by a complaint on the part of the defendant. But the duty of the court in my view exists even in the absence of a complaint.’
Leggatt J said: ‘Where a prosecutor applies to withdraw one charge and substitute another, which on the face of it is less serious, the magistrates’ court will ordinarily have no reason to object, and indeed no ground for doing so, provided that their powers of sentence remain sufficient. Here it is said that the stipendiary magistrate should have required the prosecutor to proceed on the charge of attempted theft instead of the charge of interfering with a motor vehicle, because the effect of the substitution was, as it is put, to deprive the defendant of his right to trial by jury. It is therefore said to have constituted an abuse of process, notwithstanding that the applicant was thereby rendered vulnerable to a less severe maximum punishment.
The key to the determination of this case appears to me to be that a defendant arraigned in a magistrates’ court has in truth no absolute right to trial by jury. Whether he has such a right depends on the charge which is preferred against him. Until the more serious charge . . was withdrawn the applicant enjoyed such a prospective right, but in relation to the less serious charge he did not. To speak of depriving the applicant of his right to trial by jury is . . only a pejorative way of making the point that upon reduction of the charge he ceased to be confronted by a charge sufficiently serious to warrant a right to trial by jury. In the absence of bad faith on the part of the prosecutor or of unfairness or prejudice to the accused, the prosecutor’s motive in making the substitution was irrelevant. The question is whether the substitution is in this sense a proper one.’
and ‘Whilst it is no doubt preferable that the charge ultimately made against a defendant should be correct in the first place that cannot always occur.’

Judges:

Bingham LJ, Leggatt J

Citations:

[1990] RTR 220

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLouca v A German Judicial Authority SC 19-Nov-2009
The defendant resisted extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant was defective in not revealing the existence of two earlier such warrants. He said that absence of such information would hinder a court which was concerned as to possible . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.380336

Director of Public Prosecutions v Saddington; Chief Constable of the North Yorkshire Police v Michael Saddington: Admn 1 Nov 2000

A motorised scooter of the type known as a ‘Go-Ped’ was a motor vehicle within the Act. Accordingly a driving licence and third party insurance were both required for its use on a public highway. The scooter required the passenger to stand on a small platform, and was powered by a 22.5cc engine. The braking and steering systems were inadequate, and the scooter had none of the other services such as lights and controls normally required to control a motor vehicle. The test was whether a reasonable person would see the rider as a road user. If he would, then it was a motor vehicle. Its use on roads was to be expected, and it therefore was intended to be so used despite disclaimers from the manufacturers. Pill LJ said that ‘surrender to the temptation to use [it] on the roads will not be an isolated occurrence’.

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

Times 01-Nov-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 409, [2001] RTR 227

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 185(1)

Citing:

CitedBurns v Currell 1963
The defendant was accused of offences related to the driving on a public road a mechanically propelled vehicle, a Go-Kart.
Held: In fact it was not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. The Court set out the test to be applied in . .
CitedChief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Fleming QBD 1987
The defendant was stopped pushing a motor-cycle along the road. It had been adapted for scrambling, and the registration plates lights and speedometer had been removed. He argued that it was no longer a motor vehicle ‘adapted or intended for use on . .

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v King Admn 13-Feb-2008
The defendant was charged after driving a ‘City Mantis Electric Scooter’. He was disqualified from driving. The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of the charges on the basis that the scooter was not of such a description as to require a licence . .
CitedCoates, Regina v Misc 18-Jan-2011
(Barnsley Magistrates Court) The defendant owned a Segway, a two wheeled vehicle. He was charged with having driven it on a public footpath despite its being a motor vehicle. He denied that it was a motor vehicle ‘adapted or intended for use on the . .
CitedCoates v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 29-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for driving a Segway scooter on a footpath. He denied that it was ‘a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads.’
Held: The appeal failed. The district judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80042

Director of Public Prosecutions v Spurrier: QBD 21 Jul 1999

It was not absolutely necessary for a defendant who asserted that a Lion Intoximeter was faulty because of a disparity between the reading and what had been drunk, to bring expert evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that the Intoximeter was in working order. A court could reach such a conclusion without such evidence, but should be careful to examine all relevant aspects of the evidence.
The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of a charge under section 5. The magistrates heard that the reading was exceptionally high, but that the police had not noticed any effect on her demeanour and it had been twelve hours since she had consumed any alcohol.
Held: The case bumped up against the limits for magistrates to act without expert evidence, but the appeal failed. Their decision was not perverse. It was not absolutely necessary for a defendant who asserted that a Lion Intoximeter was faulty because of a disparity between the reading and what had been drunk, to bring expert evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that the Intoximeter was in working order. A court could reach such a conclusion without such evidence, but should be careful to examine all relevant aspects of the evidence.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Oct-1999, Times 12-Aug-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 721

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)

Citing:

CitedCracknell v Willis HL 1988
The evidence which is admissible on a challenge to the reliability of an intoximeter device is not limited to direct evidence of the unreliability of the breath testing device, but can be based on evidence such as the level of consumption, and the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Hill 1991
dpp_hill1991
The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of a summons alleging that the driver had driven with excess alcohol. The magistrates had concluded that the intoximeter must have been faulty.
Held: The conclusion that the device was unreliable was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80049

Director of Public Prosecutions v Warren: HL 9 Dec 1992

It was a Police Constable’s responsibility to decide whether a blood or urine specimen was to be taken. He needn’t offer the urine option: ‘it is clear that under section 8(2) the driver, in order that he may decide whether or not to claim that the breath specimen be replaced, should be fully informed of the nature of the option open to him and what will be involved if he exercises it. He should be told that the specimen of breath which he has given containing the lower proportion of alcohol exceeds the statutory limit but does not exceed 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath; that in these circumstances he is entitled to claim to have this specimen replaced by a specimen of blood or urine if he wishes; but that, if he does so, it will be for the constable to decide whether the replacement is to be of blood or urine and that if the constable requires a specimen of blood it will be taken by a doctor unless the doctor considers that there are medical reasons for not taking blood, when urine may be given instead.’ and ‘In a case where the driver’s option is to be explained to him under section 8(2), the driver should be told that if he exercises the right to have a replacement specimen taken under section 7(4), it will be for the constable to decide whether that specimen is to be of blood or urine and, if the constable intends to require a specimen of blood to be taken by a medical practitioner, the driver should be told that his only right to object to giving blood and to give urine instead will be for medical reasons to be determined by the medical practitioner. In neither case is there any need to invite the driver to express his preference for giving blood or urine.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge

Citations:

Gazette 09-Dec-1992, [1993] AC 319

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(3)(b) 7(4) 8(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Jackson, Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 29-Jul-1998
When requesting a drink driver suspect to give a specimen of blood, an officer’s failure to say that the specimen will be taken by a doctor was not fatal to the prosecution. The issue of whether the blood sample was to be taken had properly been . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Orchard Admn 17-Oct-2000
The prosecution appealed a finding of no case to answer against a defendant accused of driving with excess alcohol. On being offered a choice of blood or urine test, he had asked ‘What is the quickest way out of here’ which the officer recorded as . .
CitedJoseph v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 24-Nov-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80053

Director of Public Prosecutions v Wilson: QBD 21 Mar 2001

The use of an admission obtained under compulsion that a driver was the driver, at the time when a car was being driven so as to commit an offence, was not an infringement of the defendant’s human rights, and there was no requirement of a notice that the admission obtained might be used in evidence.

Citations:

Times 21-Mar-2001, Gazette 03-May-2001

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 172(2)(b)

Road Traffic, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80057

Director of Public Prosecutions v Winstanley: QBD 1 Mar 1993

A constable going through the procedure of breathalysing a motorist has the right to require a urine specimen if subsequently no doctor is available, even where he has already heard from the detainee as to his wish to provide a blood sample, and has agreed to that.

Citations:

Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988

Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80059

Dittah and Another v Phillipps: QBD 1 Mar 1993

Limits on operation of taxis. A taxi license authorised a taxi to operate within the district to which it related and not beyond. To operate within another district would require a license from that district.

Citations:

Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993

Statutes:

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 46(1)(d)

Road Traffic, Local Government, Licensing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80067

Director of Public Prosecutions v Falzarano: QBD 16 Nov 2000

The defendant had failed to provide a specimen of breath at the police station. Her GP gave evidence that she suffered from panic attacks, and that such an attack would lead to a shortness of breath which would make it difficult for her to provide a specimen of breath. The prosecutor’s appeal failed. The magistrates had had the advantage of observing the defendant’s demeanour, and the reasonable excuse defence had been established.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Nov-2000, Times 24-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)

Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80000

Director of Public Prosecutions v Furby: QBD 23 Mar 2000

A motorist had deliberately failed to complete the breath test procedure twice. In later court proceedings he was able to bring medical evidence that he would have been unable to do so in any event. He was held to have been properly convicted. There could be no reasonable excuse where inability was later shown. He would only have been able to rely on the inability to supply a specimen if he had tried to provide one and failed.

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80002

Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphries: QBD 3 Dec 1999

Following a conviction for driving with excess alcohol, the defendant argued that the short (nil) distance driven constituted a special reason for not disqualifying him. The court said that the magistrates were entitled to take into account the defendant’s intention, over and above what had actually been achieved by him in driving away.

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 Sch 2

Citing:

InterpretedChatters v Burke QBD 1986
A car had rolled over and stopped in a field next to the highway and was then driven with a flat tyre a few yards from the field through a gate, onto the road and parked there.
Held: In determining whether special reasons existed to justify . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80010

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 the Act and sent the case back to the Justices with a direction to admit the constable’s evidence of that test. The failure of a constable to wait until after twenty minutes after driver’s last drink did not invalidate the request for a roadside breath test. The Act is not to be defeated by technicalities.

Citations:

Times 13-Apr-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 258, [1999] RTR 109

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 3 4 5, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Coulter Admn 29-Jun-2005
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80022

Director of Public Prosecutions v Bristow: QBD 28 Oct 1996

The prosecutor appealed against the decision of the magistrates, having found the defendant guilty of driving with excess alcohol, then not to disqualify him, finding special reasons for so doing. He had gone in answer to a call that a child niece was being assaulted and held against her will.
Held: There may be special reasons for non-disqualification of a driver convicted of driving with excess alcohol, if a sober reasonable and responsible friend might have said that the defendant should drive. Here however a sober friend would have advised the driver against driving, and the appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Gage J

Citations:

Times 28-Oct-1996, [1998] RTR 100

Statutes:

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 34(1), Road Traffic Act 1988 5

Citing:

CitedPugsley v Hunter 1973
The court discussed the basis of a submission that there existed special reasons for non-disqualification for driving whilst under the influence of drink when the driver’s drinks had been spiked. It was necessary for the applicant to show first, . .
CitedWhittle v Kirby 1946
A special reason for not disqualifying a driver is one which is special to the facts of the case and not personal to the offender. . .
CitedTaylor 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 . .
CitedChatters v Burke QBD 1986
A car had rolled over and stopped in a field next to the highway and was then driven with a flat tyre a few yards from the field through a gate, onto the road and parked there.
Held: In determining whether special reasons existed to justify . .

Cited by:

CitedKhan, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-Oct-2004
Defendant pleaded guity to drink driving – claim for special reasons – appeal against finding of absence of special reasons to disqualify. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79989

Director of Public Prosecutions v McCarthy: QBD 8 Jan 1999

A driver required to give his name and address satisfied the address requirement by giving an address at which he could properly be contacted. The address of his solicitor was satisfactory provided reasonably swift and easy communication was possible.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1999, Times 08-Jan-1999, Gazette 03-Feb-1999

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 170(2)

Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80031

Director of Public Prosecutions v Coyle: QBD 17 Jul 1995

There was no need for a police officer to warn the defendant of the three minute cycle for the Intoximeter after a test. A failure to warn a motorist of the machine time limit was not good reason for a driver to refuse to give a specimen.

Citations:

Ind Summary 17-Jul-1995, Times 20-Jul-1995

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7

Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79997

Criminal Proceedings Against E Clarke Ltd and Sons (Coaches) Ltd and Another: ECJ 1 May 1998

Tachograph equipment was required for tour coach which took passengers from airports, tourist locations and hotels. Lack of predetermined routes or stopping off places disallowed exemption.

Citations:

Times 01-May-1998, C-47/97, [1998] EUECJ C-47/97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79659

Criminal Proceedings Against Hume Case C-193/99: ECJ 5 Oct 2000

When a driver subject to the tachograph requirements did not take his rest period in one week, the regulation permitting him to aggregate it with that in the week following did not permit him to take two separate rest periods in that week, but rather two periods together. The wording of the directive as expressed in languages other than English was clear, and the English was not very doubtful.

Citations:

Times 05-Oct-2000

Road Traffic, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79662

Criminal Proceedings Against Skills Motor Coaches Ltd and Others: ECJ 18 Jan 2001

Where drivers drove away from their home and main centre of work to pick up a vehicle which would require them to record their activities on the tachograph, they were obliged in addition to record the time travelling as another period of work. This was not a situation where a driver had begun driving immediately after a rest period. Whether the driver had had specific instructions as to what to do or had had some element of choice was not conclusive either.

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001, [2001] EUECJ C-297/99, C-297/99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transport Act 1968

Road Traffic, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79669

Cawthhorn v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 31 Aug 1999

The duty falling upon a driver to stop and report an accident immediately and in any event with 24 hours, was not dependent upon him actually driving at the time. A driver parked the vehicle on a hill and left it to post a letter. It rolled away and caused damage. The driver ran away, but was properly convicted.

Citations:

Times 31-Aug-1999

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 170

Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78950

Cantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate: Admn 31 Mar 2000

Even though no underlying offence was suspected, the owner of tachograph records was required to hand them over to the inspector for inspection off the premises if necessary. An offer to allow inspection, but only at the record keeper’s offices was not a sufficient compliance with a requirement to hand them over. The express power to take records arose when an offence was suspected. The obligation did not depend upon receipt of a notice requiring delivery of the records within ten days to the office of the Traffic Commissioner.

Citations:

Gazette 05-May-2000, Times 13-Apr-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 315

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transport Act 196899

Cited by:

Appeal fromCantabrica Coach Holdings Limited v Vehicle Inspectorate (on Appeal From a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division) HL 22-Nov-2001
A transport examiner investigating compliance with the drivers hours regulations was allowed to remove records from an office for examination, and a company refusing him to be allowed to do that committed an offence. Where removal was necessary, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78870

Batchelor v Marlow and Another: ChD 25 May 2000

The applicant claimed parking rights as an easement. If an easement was capable of arising by virtue of a deed of grant, it could also be acquired by prescription. This was such an easement. Use in the absence of planning permission did not vitiate the acquisition by prescription, since the use did not become unlawful until a planning enforcement notice had been served.

Citations:

Times 07-Jun-2000, Gazette 25-May-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000, (2001) 82 P and CR 36

Cited by:

CitedP and S Platt Ltd v Crouch and Another CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought a declaration that certain easements had been included by implication in a conveyance of part of land to him.
Held: Since the easements were capable of subsisting at law, and existed as quasi-easements at the time, and did . .
Appeal fromBatchelor v Marlow and Another CA 12-Jul-2001
The applicant claimed parking rights as an easement acquired by prescription. At first instance the rights were recognised as an easement. The rights included parking during daylight hours during weekdays. The land-owner appealed on the ground that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Road Traffic, Limitation

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78277

Baldwin v West Yorkshire Police, orse Baldwin v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 3 Jul 1995

The choice given to a person detained on suspicion of driving with excess alcohol, of giving either a blood or a urine sample was given satisfactorily, if it was done properly and fairly. Curtis J: ‘I would observe that the words of Lord Bridge in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Warren [1993] R.T.R. 58 are not a statute. As I have endeavoured to set out, they are words to guide the lower courts in the interpretation of the statute and how this branch of the law should be approached.
In my judgment, so long as the option given by the statute is explained fairly and properly so that the driver can make an informed decision, the requirements of justice and the efficacy of the driver’s option given by the statute under section 8(2) are ensured. Of course, it is right, as Turner v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Note-1994) [1996] R.T.R. 274, 278L-279A requires, that the explanation of the matters that the driver has to be told in order to exercise his proper right should be detailed.
However, on the facts of this case, in my judgment, this particular defendant did make an informed decision and was given all the necessary explanations and information that he would need to make a proper and informed decision.’

Judges:

Curtis J

Citations:

Ind Summary 03-Jul-1995, [1996] RTR 238

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 8(2)

Road Traffic, Police

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78105

Williams v Ellis: 1880

The court was asked whether a bicycle was a carriage for toll purposes.
Held: It was not. The applicable local turnpike Act defined a carriage in such a way that motorised and animal drawn vehices were caught but not otherwise.

Citations:

(1880) 5 QBD 175, [1880] 49 LJMC 47, [1880] 42 LT 249

Cited by:

CitedCoates v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 29-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for driving a Segway scooter on a footpath. He denied that it was ‘a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads.’
Held: The appeal failed. The district judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.442524

Teape v Godfrey: 1986

Citations:

[1986] RTR 213

Cited by:

Not to be followedPiggott v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Feb-2008
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.266481

Regina v Pettipher: CACD 1989

Citations:

[1989] 11 CAR (S) 321

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Shepherd; Regina v Wernet; Attorney General’s References Nos. 14 and 24 of 1993 CACD 26-Jan-1994
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.251433

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 accident.
Lord Widgery CJ:’We would add only one other point on this aspect of the case. It is now recognised and has been recognised in a number of instances that there will be cases under section 2(2) where the primary facts are not in dispute and when the question of accident or no becomes a matter of pure law, in the same way that cases sometimes arise where the primary facts are not in dispute and in which the question of whether a person is driving or not becomes a pure matter of law. We think that in this case the deputy chairman would not have erred if he had directed the jury in that sense. We do not criticise him for not taking that line – he may well have been wise in seeking the verdict of the jury on the facts before them – but cases of this kind, where there really is no factual dispute left and the matter is one of law only, are cases in which the presiding judge can, if he thinks fit, give a ruling to that effect. If there is a dispute as to fact the issue must of course be left to the jury.’
As to the meaning of ‘accident’: ‘Several attempts at definitions of the words ‘accident’ have been made in the course of argument. (he referred to Fenton v J Thorley and Co Ltd) Sachs LJ in the course of the argument supplied an alternative, with which the other members of the court agree, in which he suggested that ‘accident’ in the present context means an unintended occurrence which has an adverse physical result. We think that it would be wrong to construe ‘accident’ in this context too narrowly. We are conscious of the fact that this is an interference with the liberty of the subject, but the Act does not make the having of an accident an offence, it merely provides it as a qualification for the taking of a breath test, and the underlying conception of section 2(2) is that if some unintended occurrence which has adverse physical result arises out of the presence of motor vehicle on a road, that is a fair basis on which a police officer may request the provision of a specimen of breath. Such an occurrence is one in which, prima facie at any rate, the circumstances of the occurrence and of the driver involved in it deserves consideration by authority, and accordingly we think that the definition suggested by Sachs LJ is one which fits the intention of Parliament and will not open the door unduly widely to the suggestion that random breath tests can be taken in purported consequence of it.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ, Sachs LJ

Citations:

[1972] RTR 201

Statutes:

Road Safety Act 1967 2(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina 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.
CitedFenton 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 by:

CitedCurrie, Regina v CACD 26-Apr-2007
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 . .
CitedChief 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.251521

Regina v Browning: CACD 2002

The defendant, a lorry driver veered from the road whilst sending a text message. He killed a man in a lay-by.
Held: The sentence of 5 years was upheld. Mance LJ said: ‘The use of a mobile phone to read and compose text messages while driving is a highly perilous activity. Even the use of a hand-held mobile phone by a driver whilst moving, a much too common feature of driving today, is self-evidently risky. But the risks of reading and composing, text messages appears to us of a wholly different order and to be to use the judges words, of the most ‘blatant nature’. Browning had pleaded guilty but there had to be a Newton hearing. Browning’s evidence was not accepted so he was not entitled to full credit for his plea.

Judges:

Mance LJ

Citations:

[2002] 1 CAR (S) 377

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.251432

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 were.
Held: That evidence was admissible and sufficient both as a matter of principle and by reference to the previous authorities. Owen v Chesters was decided on the failure of the prosecution to bring evidence that the machine was calibrated and working properly.

Judges:

Glidewell LJ, Curtis J

Citations:

[1994] RTR 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedOwen 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 by:

CitedSneyd 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.240392

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 that the machine was producing reliable evidence: ‘it had to be accompanied by evidence of the calibration of the machine, both before and after the specimen of breath had been provided by the defendant and of the date and time when the test was taken. The witness also had to be in a position to inform the justices that the figures for calibration which he saw, if he did, on the display panel were within permissible limits and that therefore the device was functioning properly.
A police officer is not in a position to give this evidence unless he is one who has been trained upon the use of this device and its manner of performance. Put another way, he has to be one who understands the calibration process and recognises that unless the result of the process lies with accepted limits the machine is not calibrating as it should and is therefore unreliable.

Citations:

[1986] RTR 350

Cited by:

CitedSneyd 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.240390

Regina v Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ex parte Howell: 1986

After twelve years a London cab driver’s licence was not renewed on medical grounds.
Held: His challenge succeeded because he had been given no opportunity to make representations about the matters said to have concerned the decision-makers. An order that the matter be reconsidered and decided afresh.

Citations:

(1986) RTR 52

Cited by:

CitedNaidike, Naidike and Naidike v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 12-Oct-2004
(Trinidad and Tobago) The claimant was arrested following expiry of the last of his work permits and after he had failed to provide evidence of his intention to leave. As he was arrested he was also arrested for assaulting a police officer. He was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Road Traffic

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.237243

Bastable v Little: 1907

The police had set up a series of speed traps in London Road, Croydon. Mr Little occupied himself giving warning signals to drivers approaching the traps, thus ensuring that they did not exceed the speed limit. There was no evidence that the drivers were exceeding the speed limit at the time when they received Mr Little’s signals, although all slowed down. The defendant had been charged with obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty under section 2 of the 1885 Act.
Held:
Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘Suppose a party of men are engaged in the offence of night poaching, and a person passing near warns them that the police are coming, I think it is clear that that could not be held to be an offence within this section. We must not allow ourselves to be warped by any prejudice against motor cars, and so to strain the law against them.’
Darling J made the point that there was no evidence from another driver, and added: ‘In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection, with the intention that the commission of the crime should be re-commenced as soon as the danger of detection is past.’

Judges:

Lord Alverstone CJ

Citations:

[1907] 1 KB 59

Statutes:

Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act 1885 2

Cited by:

DistinguishedBetts v Stevens 1910
The defendant, an Automobile Association patrolman was accused of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. The police had set a speed trap, and the defendant had warned approaching vehicles of the trap. At the time they were . .
CitedGreen v Moore 1982
The respondent, a probationer police constable was convicted for obstructing police officers in the execution of their duty under s51(3) of the 1964 Act. He was a regular in a bar he knew was to be raided. He warned the landlord who complied with . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Glendinning Admn 13-Oct-2005
The defendant had been accused of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty by warning motorists of presence of a police speed trap. The prosecutor appealed from dismissal of the charge.
Held: ‘the hand signals given by the . .
DistinguishedHinchcliffe v Sheldon QBD 20-Jan-1955
The appellant was the son of the licensee of an inn. On returning to the inn one night at about 11.17, he found that police officers wished to enter the premises as they suspected that the licensee was committing an offence under the Licensing Act . .
CitedLunt v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1993
The defendant had been in a road traffic accident. The police came to his house to investigate the accident, but he refused to unlock the door to allow them entry. Stating reliance on section 4 of the 1988 Act, the officers threatened to force . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.235212

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.

Citations:

[1974] QB 435

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCambridgeshire County Council v Associated Lead Mills Ltd ChD 22-Jul-2005
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229018

Harker v Caledonian Insurance Co: 1980

The monetary limit of the compulsory insurance was to be read into section 10, however ‘there are instances, of which costs and interest on the judgment are examples, where the insurer would be liable in the direct action for sums in excess of the permissible monetary limits upon the cover afforded by the policy.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock

Citations:

[1980] 1 Lloyds Rep 556

Statutes:

Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third-Party Risks) Act 10

Cited by:

CitedPresidential Insurance Company v Molly Hosein Stafford PC 22-Mar-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) Mrs Stafford obtained judgment against a driver insured by the appellant. He was unable to satisfy the claim and she sought recovery from the insurers. They claimed that their liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Road Traffic

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200465

Coombs v Kehoe: 1972

The defendant defended a charge of driving with excess alcohol, saying that he had only driven a short distance, and that there were special circumstances;
Held: The circumstances surrounding the respondent’s actions did not amount to a special reason. Lord Widgery CJ distinguished James v Hall by finding that in that case, the offender had only driven a few yards while here the respondent had driven a lorry about 200 yards and was therefore a potential danger.

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1972] 2 All ER 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

MentionedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Conroy Admn 23-Jun-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187500

Chief Constable of Northumbria v Brown: 1986

The defendant had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol. He challenged the use of a machine for the breath test which was not an Intoximeter.
Held: The charge was valid.

Citations:

[1986] RTR 113

Cited by:

CitedBrown v Gallagher HCJ 15-May-2002
The appellant contended that the Intoximeter which had been used to measure the level of alcohol in his breath, had not been manufactured by the approved manufacturer, and did not therefore satisfy the type approval, and that the inconsistency in . .
CitedBrown v Procurator Fiscal, Falkirk HCJ 8-Mar-2002
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the machine used to take his sample of breath did not conform to the necessary type. It had been manufactured by an independent company. Though not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182986

Hawkins v Edwards: 1901

Citations:

[1901] 2 KB 169

Statutes:

Town Police Clauses Act 1847 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNewcastle City Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough Council and others Admn 5-Nov-2008
The applicant council complained that the respondent council was issuing a disproportionately high number of taxi licences, believing that it should only refuse a licence where the driver appeared to be unfit.
Held: The purpose of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Road Traffic

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.277888

Smith v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: QBD 28 Jul 1999

Whilst there is no absolute rule of law requiring a delay in a road traffic case involving death pending the results of a coroner’s inquest, in practice they should do so, and make appropriate enquiries as to the stage reached by the inquest. Nevertheless, in this case, being unaware of the true position and having proceeded in ignorance of it, the trial decision must stand.

Citations:

Times 28-Jul-1999, Gazette 08-Sep-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Coroners

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89331

Murray v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 4 Feb 1993

The defendant claimed that a breathalyser procedure mistake vitiated the subsequent prosecution.
Held: It was essential that the motorist who was asked to provide a sample of breath be first warned that a failure to provide a specimen would make him liable to be prosecuted. Even though the motorist had not in this case been prejudiced by the omission, the evidence produced by the test was not admissible: ‘It is, therefore, in our judgment, not surprising that a strict and compulsory code is laid down as a set of pre-conditions which must be fulfilled before any specimen produced by the defendant, which may condemn him at the hearing of the charge against him, can be adduced in evidence: no matter that there may be some instances where breach of the code occasions no discernible prejudice.’

Judges:

Watkins LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-1993, [1993] RTR 209, [1993] Crim LR 968

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRussell v Devine (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Northern Ireland) HL 8-May-2003
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 . .
CitedWright v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 25-May-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the device used to measure his breath at the police station, the EC/IR intoximeter, was not an approved device. The court had refused to accept evidence to . .
CitedEdmond v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The readings on the Intoximeter were too wide apart and the officer requested a blood specimen. He complained that he had not been given a fresh warning before this request.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.84132

Jarvis v The Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 1996

There are limits to the extent to which magistrates may use in one case knowledge acquired from another.

Citations:

[1996] RTR 192

Cited by:

CitedMelia v Director of Public Prosecution Admn 5-Jun-1998
The defendant appealed his coviction for driving with excess alcohol. The Intoximeter readings had shown a test calibration range outside the figures set down. An officer gave evidence that the machine was working correctly.
Held: The issue of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.235145

Thompson v Thynne: 1996

Citations:

[1996] RTR 293

Cited by:

CitedWright v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 25-May-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the device used to measure his breath at the police station, the EC/IR intoximeter, was not an approved device. The court had refused to accept evidence to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.228468

Boss v Measures: QBD 1990

The defendant was prosecuted for having failed to provide information on a form when he had responded by telephone.

Judges:

Woolf LJ

Citations:

[1990] RTR 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector 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 . .
CitedJones v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2004
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.224360

Crawford v Haughton: QBD 1972

The defendant appealed a conviction for using a vehicle, which had been adapted for stock car racing, without insurance. He did not give evidence, but he was present and he admitted that he was the owner of the vehicle.
Held: The court allowed his appeal because there was no evidence that the actual driver of the vehicle was employed by him.

Citations:

[1972] RTR 125

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJones v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 26-Mar-1998
A van was stopped carrying a delivery of coal. The insurance was for social domestic and pleasure purposes only. The owner appealed a conviction for using it without insurance.
Held: ‘using’ when the description of the offence in connection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190482

Regina v Spurge: CCA 1961

The driver claimed automatism as his defence.
Held: The defendant ‘continued to drive when he was unfit to do so, and when he should have been aware of his unfitness.’

Citations:

[1961] 2 QB 205

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DistinguishedMansfield and Another v Weetabix Limited and Another CA 26-Mar-1997
A lorry belonging to the defendants failed to take a bend crashing into the plaintiffs’ shop causing extensive damage. Mr Terence Tarleton, the driver later died, as did Mrs Mansfield. Mr Tarleton did not know he had malignant insulinoma, resulting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190020

Leicester v Pearson: 1952

Road signs and layouts creating a pedestrian crossing did not create an absolute precedence for a pedestrian. The driver must use reasonable endeavours in the circumstances to give a a pedestrian preference. Where an accident occurs, the fact if it be so that the driver was free of negligence, will afford a full defence.

Citations:

[1952] 2 All ER 71, [1952] 2 QB 668, [1952] 1 TLR 1537

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.189999

Milne v M’Donald: HCJ 1971

The court was asked whether a blood specimen having been requested at one police station, it could be taken at another.
Held: The requirement to provide a specimen for a laboratory test is something different from the actual providing of the specimen. Subsection (1) of section 3 deals with the former only, and not with the latter.

Citations:

[1971] JC 40

Statutes:

Road Safety Act 1967 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Not FollowedButler v Easton QBD 1970
The initial formalities of a request for a specimen of blood from a driver took place at one police station, but no doctor was available there and the suspect was taken to another police station where a specimen was given. He challenged his . .

Cited by:

CitedRussell v Devine (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Northern Ireland) HL 8-May-2003
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 . .
FollowedPascoe v Nicholson HL 1981
A specimen of blood was required at one police station but provided at another.
Held: The request was validly made. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182094

Cannadine v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 2007

The fact that the back of a road sign showing a speed limit had been painted the wrong colour did not make the road de-restricted. There had been no question of the driver being misled. The law was not troubled by trivialities.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 383 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHerron and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parking Adjudicator CA 27-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against refusal of judicial review of decisions of the parking adjudicator as to the correctness of 39 penalty charge notices. In each case, they said that the signage supporting the notice, in particular single and double . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.442540

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.

Citations:

[1988] RTR 281

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSneyd 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.240391

Regina v Hall: CACD 2004

The court considered the propriety of making an anti-social behaviour at the same time as sentencing for traffic offences: ‘There is nothing wrong in principle in making such an order when there are driving offences of such a regularity and type and in such an area that they do constitute anti-social behaviour.’

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 2671

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Williams CACD 28-Jun-2005
The defendant had been convicted of many motoring offences. In sentencing him the judge had added an Anti-Social behaviour Order, which would have the effect of imposing a greater punishment for any further offences than would be possible for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.228613

Regina vCliff: CACD 25 Nov 2004

The defendant had been convicted of an affray. A car was used in the course of the defendant getting to the scene. He appealed against a sentence of imprisonment and disqualification from driving for two years.
Held: A disqualification could be imposed even though the offence was not a driving offence as such. The section was wide in its ambit, and was wider than its predecessors. There were good reasons for the disqualification, since the circumstances included an allegation of the defendant having driven whilst tipsy and colliding with another car, but a nine month disqualification was substituted.

Judges:

Gage LJ, Nelson J, Field J

Citations:

Times 01-Dec-2004

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Road Traffic

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.220262

Butler v Easton: QBD 1970

The initial formalities of a request for a specimen of blood from a driver took place at one police station, but no doctor was available there and the suspect was taken to another police station where a specimen was given. He challenged his conviction on the ground that evidence of the specimen analysis was inadmissible because the specimen had been provided at a different police station. The prosecutor contended that the place for the requirement was specified by the subsection but the place for provision of the specimen was wholly and entirely within the discretion of the police.
Held: Evidence of the specimen analysis had been inadmissible for want of compliance with the statutory procedure and quashed the conviction.

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ, Ashworth and Cantley JJ

Citations:

[1970] RTR 109

Statutes:

Road Safety Act 1967 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRussell v Devine (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Northern Ireland) HL 8-May-2003
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 . .
Not FollowedMilne v M’Donald HCJ 1971
The court was asked whether a blood specimen having been requested at one police station, it could be taken at another.
Held: The requirement to provide a specimen for a laboratory test is something different from the actual providing of the . .
DisapprovedPascoe v Nicholson HL 1981
A specimen of blood was required at one police station but provided at another.
Held: The request was validly made. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.182093

Remet Co Ltd v Newham London Borough Council: QBD 1981

The defendants, when loading non-ferrous metal swarf on to lorries standing on the highway, from time to time miscalculated the available space in a lorry being loaded, and some of the swarf accidentally fell on to the road. In respect of three such occasions the defendants were charged with depositing pieces of scrap metal on the highway without lawful authority or excuse, contrary to s.127 of the 1959 Act, providing: ‘If, without lawful authority or excuse . . (b) a person deposits any thing whatsoever on a highway . . he shall be guilty of an offence . . ‘ The defendants appealed against conviction.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Donaldson LJ said: ‘I think that the deposit of materials in this context almost certainly does mean ‘consciously and deliberately depositing them’ and, if there is any doubt about it, it must be resolved in favour of a narrower construction, this being a section which creates an offence.’

Judges:

Donaldson LJ and Bingham J

Citations:

[1981] RTR 502

Statutes:

Highways Act 1959

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThames 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.

Road Traffic

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.471927

Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Co Ltd v Morrison: 1942

The statutory requirement for compulsory insurance in the Road Traffic Act 1930 was of little value if it was open to insurers to freely exclude liability for common risks.

Judges:

Goddard LJ

Citations:

[1942] 2 KB 53

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1934

Cited by:

CitedBristol Alliance Ltd v Williams and Another QBD 1-Jul-2011
The driver had crashed into the insured’s building causing substantial damage. The court was asked which of the driver’s and building’s insurers should bear the costs. The driver’s insurers said that he had acted deliberately and therefore they were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.441429

Regina v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Heath: 16 Oct 2000

It was submitted that the schemes relating to hackney carriages and private hire vehicles were two distinct schemes, and that the issues in that case had arisen because the Council had fallen into the trap of seeking to apply private hire statutory provisions to a hackney carriage situation.
Held: The court agreed and added that the Council might be able to require persons in the position of the applicant in that case, who was licensed under the 1847 Act, to provide information in advance about who would act as a substitute driver in a case of need, and further requiring him or anyone else driving the vehicle to keep a contemporaneous record of who drove which vehicle on what day.

Judges:

Maurice Kay J

Citations:

Unreported, 16 October 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBrentwood Borough Council v Gladen Admn 28-Oct-2004
The defendant taxi operator was telephoned, and cabs were booked, and those bookings were fulfilled by providing licensed hackney carriages with licensed hackney carriage drivers. He was accused of knowingly operating the vehicles as private hire . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Road Traffic

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.219864

Director of Public Prosecutions v Watkins: QBD 1989

The offence in section 5 does not require proof that a defendant is likely to drive when accused of being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs: ‘In regard to that section two broad propositions are clear. First, the offence of being ‘in charge’ is the lowest in the scale of three charges relating to driving and drink. The two higher in the scale are driving and attempting to drive. Therefore a defendant can be ‘in charge’ although neither driving nor attempting to drive. Clearly however the mischief aimed at is to prevent driving when unfit through drink. The offence of being ‘in charge’ must therefore be intended to convict those who are not driving and have not yet done more than a preparatory act towards driving, but who in all the circumstances have already formed or may yet form the intention to drive the vehicle, and may try to drive it whilst still unfit.’ The words ‘in charge’ have been too broadly interpreted and applied.

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

[1989] QB 821

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1972 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.218820

James v Hall: 1972

Citations:

[1972] 2 All ER 59

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

MentionedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Conroy Admn 23-Jun-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187499

Director of Public Prosecutions v Andrew Earle Anthony Brown, Jose Teixeira: QBD 16 Nov 2001

Where a defendant to a charge of driving with excess alcohol, sought to test the accuracy of the Intoximeter, the Magistrates should consider whether the evidence was as to the particular Intoximeter used, and was of sufficient quality to displace the presumption in law that the Intoximeter system in general works. The evidence in such cases did not go to the ability of the equipment to measure the levels of alcohol in the deep lungs. Evidence that the machines might misread alcohol held in the mouth was not relevant since each defendant admitted that no such alcohol was present. Evidence should not be put before the Court as to whether the ECIR instrument should not have received the approval of the Secretary of State and/or that approval should have been revoked and/or that it had been modified

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Mr Justice Cresswell

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-2001, [2002] RTR 395, CO/3794/2001, CO/3710/2001

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5 15(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedRegina v Skegness Magistrates’ Court ex parte Cardy 1985
Representations that the Intoximeter or other device used for measuring breath alcohol, should not have been approved or that the Secretary of State should have withdrawn approval in respect of the device should be addressed to the Secretary of . .

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Memery QBD 4-Jul-2002
The Crown Court had concluded that the intoximeter EC/IR was not a validly approved device or if it was that it was unreasonable for the Secretary of State to have approved it since it was a device which detected mouth alcohol, i.e. was liable to . .
CitedGrant v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Jan-2003
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 . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy Admn 19-Jan-2006
Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the . .
CitedRose v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 11-Mar-2010
The defendant appealed by case stated his conviction of driving with excess alcohol. He said that the device used was not an approved one. He also said that the reading was invaid in including a reading of mouth alcohol. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Evidence

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166814

Fundo de Garantia Automovel v Juliana: ECJ 4 Sep 2018

Compulsory Insurance v Civil Liability In Respect of The Use of Motor Vehicles – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles – Directive 72/166/EEC – Article 3(1) – Second Directive 84/5/EEC – Article 1(4) – Obligation to take out a contract of insurance – Vehicle parked on private land – Right of the compensation body to bring an action against the owner of the uninsured vehicle

Citations:

C-80/17, [2018] EUECJ C-80/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:661

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Road Traffic

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.621627

Director of Public Prosecutions v Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court: Admn 7 Jul 2017

Prosecutions brought against motorists in unconnected circumstances for driving a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion if it in their respective breath exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to s. 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The same defence solicitors have appeared and, in both cases, defence statements have been served which deny the consumption of sufficient alcohol to give rise to a positive reading and challenge the reliability of the Lion Intoxilyzer device used in the procedure. Pursuant to these statements, applications have been made under s. 8 of the 1996 Act for comprehensive documentation concerning the relevant device, relying on expert evidence to the effect that there must have been some defect in the device: the evidence proceeds on the unstated premise that what is said by each of the motorists as to their alcohol consumption is accurate.

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3719 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Road Traffic

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619950

Gatenby, Regina (on Application of) v Newton Ayecliffe Magistrates’ Court: Admn 1 Dec 2017

Challenge to the decision of the Magistrates to endorse the driving licence of the claimant with 10 penalty points following his plea of guilty to an offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis contrary to Section 7, subsection 6, of the Road Traffic Act.

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3772 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619957

Farah v Abdullahi and Others: QBD 20 Apr 2018

The claimant had been injured in a road accident. The driver of the vehicle was unknown, but the insurer was known. The defendant now applied for the claim to be struck out on the basis that it had been free to avoid the policy ab initio for non-disclosure.
Held: The order stood: ‘the principles set out in Cameron are engaged and that the claimant is prima facie entitled to proceed against the third defendant as an unnamed party. It seems to me that it would be both efficacious and consistent with the overriding objective to allow the claim to go forward in that way. The entitlement of a claimant to proceed against an unnamed driver should not depend on the section 151 liability of the insurer being incontrovertibly established. That would be to draw a somewhat arbitrary distinction between cases where the claimant’s rights rested on section 151 and cases where his rights rested on the Uninsured Drivers’ Agreement / Article 75 (or some combination of the two). It would be arbitrary because both routes offer a remedy of value and both form part of an overall scheme intended to meet the UK’s obligations under the Motor Insurance Directives. Furthermore, given the time limit in section 152(2) and given also the fact that the victim of a road accident cannot know if there are matters that might lead to the avoidance of the insurance covering the vehicle which injured him, at the point of issue and/or service of the Claim Form neither he nor the court can be confident that section 151 will ultimately be engaged.’

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 738 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Road Traffic

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609110

Dymond v Pearce: CA 13 Jan 1972

A motorcyclist crashed into the rear of a lorry stationary on the carriageway. The plaintff said that the parking of the lorry was a nuisance, and that if it had not been so parked, there would have been no accident.
Held: The appeal failed. The accident was due wholly to the negligence of the motorcyclist. ‘sine qua non is not an all-sufficient basis for establishing liability.’ In criminal law at least nuisance must be actual as opposed to potential.

Judges:

Sachs LJ, Edmund Davies LJ, Stephenson LJ

Citations:

[1972] 1 All ER 1142, [1972] EWCA Civ 7, [1972] 2 WLR 633, [1972] 1 QB 496, [1972] RTR 169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMorton v Wheeler CA 31-Jan-1956
Sharp spikes by the side of a highway were said to be a nuisance. Lord Denning MR said: ‘As all lawyers know, the tort of public nuisance is a curious mixture. It covers a multitude of sins. We are concerned to-day with only one of them, namely, a . .
CitedMaitland v Raisbeck CA 1944
Lord Greene MR said: ‘Every person . . has a right to use the highway and, if something happens to him which in fact causes an obstruction to the highway but is in no way referable to his fault, it is quite impossible, in my view, to say that ipso . .
CitedFarrel v Mowlem 1954
The defendant had without justification laid a pipe across a pavement and the plaintiff tripped over it and was injured.
Held: The defendant was liable in nuisance. Devlin J said, as to the pipe: ‘No doubt it is a comparatively harmless sort . .
CitedRead v J Lyons and Co Ltd HL 1946
The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. A shell exploded injuring her. No negligence was alleged. The company worked as agent for the ministry.
Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . .
CitedOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .
CitedParish v Judd 1960
A lorry and a car it was towing stopped, obstructing the highway. The plaintiff crashed into them, and claimed that they constituted a nuisance. The vehicles had only just stopped, and the driver was checking that all was well with the car. The . .
CitedTrevetts v Lee CA 1955
Lord Evershed MR said: ‘The law as regards obstruction to highways is conveniently stated in a passage in Salmond on Torts, 13th edition: ‘A nuisance to a highway consists either in obstructing it or in rendering it dangerous’. Then a numbed of . .
CitedMorton v Weaver CA 31-Jan-1956
The court distinguished between obstructions of a highway and dangers created on it. Lord Denning MR asked: ‘How are we to determine whether a state of affairs in or near a highway is a danger?’ and answered ‘This depends, I think, on whether injury . .

Cited by:

CitedRouse v Squires CA 22-Mar-1973
. .
CitedHoughton v Stannard QBD 29-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic, Nuisance

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.188834

Director of Public Prosecutions v Spicer: Admn 13 Mar 1997

The defendant had successfully argued no case to answer, on a charge of driving without due care. The prosecutor appealed by way of case stated. From the detailed notes available to the court, it was clear that there was evidence before them to put the defendant to an answer. Case remitted.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 259

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.137204

Regina v Pydar Justices Ex Parte Foster: QBD 23 May 1995

There was a case to answer on an OPL charge despite the computer readout not being handed to Justices. It was in evidence. Evidence referred to but not challenged by the defendant can be relied upon by Justices in making their decision. The court commented on a suggestion that a defending advocate was entitled to ‘keep his powder dry’: ‘Mr Burkett [who was the applicant] submitted that the solicitor concerned was entitled to sit quiet and not alert the justices to the error the defendant claims existed on the form, but make a submission about it to them later at a time of his choosing. I profoundly disagree with this thoroughly bad submission. Without any doubt whatsoever, it is the duty of a defending advocate properly to lay the ground for a submission, either by cross-examination or, if appropriate, by calling evidence.’

Judges:

Curtis J

Citations:

Times 23-May-1995, Ind Summary 12-Jun-1995, [1995] 160 JP 87

Cited by:

CitedChristopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn 31-Mar-2000
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . .
CitedAntonio Leeson v Haringey Justices and Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 26-Jul-1999
The prosecutor on a charge of driving with excess alcohol had failed to adduce evidence as to the calibration of the intoximeter. The magistrates allowed him to re-open his case. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘If the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87578