The defendant, a commercial traveller, fitted a rail across in the back of his private motor car to carry dresses. The issue was whether or not there had been some degree of adaptation.
Held: Lord Parker CJ said: ‘It seems to me that, by conjunction of the words ‘constructed or adapted’, the definition is really saying ‘originally constructed or where the structure is subsequently altered’. Immediately one says that, the question arises whether it can be said that the structure of the vehicle in the ordinary sense of the word has been altered, or whether the structure remains the same, but that some small fitting or attachment is changed which, although it physically involves making small holes for screws in the structure, could not in any ordinary sense of the word be an alteration of the structure. Indeed, in Minty v Glew , the alteration was that the wagonette in question had been fitted with stronger springs and the wheels had been strengthened and widened, matters which quite clearly, as it seems to me, would be alterations in the structure.’ and ‘I should add that it is not a question of what any of us sitting here would have found on the facts, but merely whether it is possible to say that their decision was perverse, and that, properly directing their minds to the question, the justices must have come to an opposite conclusion, namely that an offence was made out.’
Judges:
Lord Parker CJ
Citations:
[1961] 1 WLR 435
Cited by:
Cited – Coates 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: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.442520