Adams v Commissioner of Police 1980
- Reported: [1980] RTR 289, DC
- Year: 1980
- Court: Queen's Bench Division
FACTS:-
Residents on a private estate considered that the driving of motor cycles, cars and buses on a road in the estate was dangerous. The private housing estate was commonly used as a shortcut by pedestrians. It was also commonly used as a race-track by youths on motor-cycles. Police prosecutions were not instituted on the basis that road was not a road within the meaning of s.196(1) of the Road Traffic Act. The Claimant’s brought an action on their behalf and at the same time representing the committee of the Aberdeen Park Residents Association. The Claimant’s went to the Court for a declaration that the private road known as Aberdeen Park, London N5 was a highway or other road to which the public has access within the meaning of s.196(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972.
The evidence showed that to enter the park in the nineteenth century there were iron gates and there was no access to the public unless they had business with the estate. The previous freeholder owned all 85 dwellings. During the war the gate and all the iron work were taken away where Aberdeen Park met Highbury Grove. The 85 buildings were then leased, or sold off as freeholds. The freeholder died in 1938 and at that time there was a gate point but it remained open, there was easy access for vehicles although there were signs up. On the North side of the park access was controlled by a gate and the Fire Brigade had a key. There was also stiles where pedestrians could get in although notices were up.
Aberdeen Park had notices informing the public that it was private with access restricted to residents. The notices were amended so as to delete reference to restrictions on entry. The residents of the estate sought a declaration against the Commissioner of Police that the roads within it were “roads” within the Road Traffic Act 1972 s.196(1) for the purposes of prosecuting the youths for their driving.
Seven different notices were up until 17 November 1979. The notices suggested that there was no right to use Aberdeen Park either for vehicles or for pedestrians except where they have business with the occupiers of the buildings in Aberdeen Park. Throughout the Park there were three accesses for pedestrians although the paths were not defined footpaths.
Over the years the character of Aberdeen Park had changed. There were additional twentieth century buildings alongside the original Victorian dwellings.
The reason for these proceedings was that the residents of Aberdeen Park were troubled by the driving of motor cycles, cars and, indeed, buses in Aberdeen Park in a manner which they consider to be a danger and a risk to the people who dwell there and to others.
HELD:-
Jupp, J found that Aberdeen Park was, on the evidence presented a road to which the public had access within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1972 . Although Jupp J refused to make a declaratory order particularly because it was clear that the defendant will not now act on the erroneous legal advice he had been given in the past.
Jupp J refused the declaration on a number of reasons. The declaration was refused because (1) the residents were not asking for any direction that the Commissioner should do anything; (2) the court could not bind a criminal court in relation to a subsequent criminal prosecution, when the matter could be litigated afresh; (3) the circumstances had now changed in any event; (4) the court did not wish to fetter the Commissioner’s discretion; (5) in any case, the residents had succeeded in showing that the Commissioner had previously declined to prosecute on the basis of incorrect advice; (6) the roads were “roads” within the section, even though the declaration could not be granted Harrison v Hill 1932 J.C. 13 HCJ, Cox v White [1976] R.T.R. 248 DC and Ottway v Jones [1955] 1 W.L.R. 706 CA applied; Knaggs v Elson (1965) 109 S.J. 596 DC considered.
Related posts:
