A motorist was convicted of speeding. On the stretch of road subject to the temporary limit an additional part had been included falsely representing the correct ends of the limited stretch. Nevertheless, the motorist was accused of speeding within the area subject to the restriction.
Held: Any misleading element in the signage did not affect that issue, and he was properly convicted. Where a temporary speed limit is in force on a stretch of road under an order made under the section 14, the order is not invalidated by speed restriction signs so placed as to suggest that the order applied to a longer stretch of road than was in fact the case. The offence of ‘exceeding the speed limit’ is not an offence requiring a mental element. The purpose of section 85 is that ‘adequate guidance be given to motorists’.
Judges:
Schiemann LJ and Astill J
Citations:
Times 16-Mar-2000, Gazette 23-Mar-2000, CO/4116/99
Statutes:
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 14
Cited by:
Cited – Coombes v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 20-Dec-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction for speeding. The speed camera was placed just after the 30mph limit was imposed, and the signs were obscured by foliage.
Held: There was no case law direct on the point. The appeal was allowed. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90338
