Key Facts
- •Claimant convicted on 6 November 2022 for driving with excess alcohol.
- •Magistrates refused to state a case on 27 November 2022.
- •Conviction concerned whether the incident location (Vancouver Close, Corby) was a 'road or other public place' under s.5(1)(a) Road Traffic Act 1988.
- •Evidence included testimony from a taxi driver and a police officer, and a Google Maps photograph.
- •Magistrates found Vancouver Close had hallmarks of a public road with unrestricted access.
- •Claimant argued the conviction was unsafe due to insufficient evidence of public use beyond residents and visitors.
Legal Principles
Whether a location is a 'road or other public place' under s.5(1)(a) Road Traffic Act 1988 is a question of fact and degree, but sufficiency of evidence and findings can raise a question of law.
Various cases cited, including Vivier [1991] RTR 205.
The statutory test is public 'access', not a particular level of public 'use'.
Judge's own reasoning.
Evidence of actual use by the public (beyond residents or visitors) may be crucial, especially in ambiguous cases (car parks, yards etc.). However, a 'street' may be public on its face.
Hallett v DPP [2011] EWHC 488 (Admin); Deacon v AT [1976] RTR 244; Harriot v DPP [2005] EWHC 965 (Admin); R v Bogdal [2008] EWCA Crim 1.
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review granted.
The claim is arguable, though not enthusiastically supported. The judge highlighted several points suggesting the magistrates' decision may be flawed but acknowledged opposing arguments.
'Minded to transfer order' made to transfer the case to the Administrative Court in Birmingham.
The claim was incorrectly filed in London; Birmingham is the appropriate venue.