Brewer v Director Of Public Prosecutions [2005]
- Reported: [2004] EWHC 355 (Admin)
- Year: 2004
- Court: Queen's Bench
- Full text available: Here
FACTS:-
The Defendant was seen by the police driving his car slowly but erratically in a railway station car park. He was breathalysed and it was found that his specimen contained alcohol in excess of the prescribed limit. In addition he was disqualified from driving. The car park was bordered by a fence and had a gate at the entrance. Vehicle access was gained by pressing a button to produce a ticket and the removal of the tick in turn caused the barrier to lift. Access to one of the railway staff car parks was obtained through the car park, and pedestrian access to a station platform could be gained from the car park by users of the car park and members of the public.
The Defendant was charged under the following sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988:-
Section 5(1) states:-
“If a person – (a) drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place…..after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.”
Section 103(1) (as substituted by section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 1991) which provides:-
“A person is guilty of an offence if, while disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence, he….(b) drives a motor vehicle on a road.”
Section 192(1) provides:-
“In this Act….”road” in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access….”
The prosecutor had invited the justices to find that the Defendant had been driving on a road for the purposes of both offences (excess alcohol/disqualified driving). He declined to amend the charge for the excess alcohol offence to include driving in a “public place.” Consequently the issue was whether this car park was a road. The Defendant took the point and said that because the car park was not a road he could not be convicted of either offence.
At first instance, the justices decided that the railway station car park constituted a road and convicted the Defendant of driving on a road with excess alcohol and driving whilst disqualified.
HELD:-
Rose LJ made reference to Cutter v Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd.; Clare v. Kato [1998] RTR 153. In that case the question had come up as to whether two car parks were in fact roads. The court had said that the proper function of a car park is to enable vehicle to stand and wait. A car may be driven across it; but that was only incidental to the principal function of parking. It was decided that neither car park was to be regarded as a road or as a part of a road. They were not designed or dedicated for the passage of vehicles. Furthermore whilst there might be a route useable by pedestrians or even bicycles across the car park, that did not suffice to make it a road.
In the present case Rose LJ said that the only feature that was capable of rendering this car park a road, was that staff drove cars through this car park on their way to the staff car park. That was insufficient in Rose LJ’s view. In his view the car park was not a road and the Defendant’s convictions would be quashed.
Related posts:
