Director of Public Prosecutions v Saddington [2001]
- Reported: [2001] RTR 15
- Year: 2001
- Court: Court of Appeal
FACTS:
Mr Saddington, the Defendant, was seen by a police officer to pass through a red traffic light while riding an unregistered motorised scooter known as a “Go-ped” on the inside lane of a road.
The Defendant failed to stop when the police officer activated his sirens and flashing lights and attempted to avoid apprehension by riding through a narrow gap between parked cars before picking up the Go-ped and running with it into a public house.
He was finally apprehended and it was discovered that he was driving while disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence. He was charged under section 87 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which makes it an offence to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor
The Go-ped had not been adapted in anyway. It had a small foot platform attached to a two barred sub-frame on which the passenger would stand and was powered by a 22.5cc engine attached to its rear with a maximum of 20mph. the braking system could not stop the Go-ped safely from any great speed or when applied in an emergency situation, as severe braking would cause the back wheel to lift.
In addition it also had inadequate steering and no basic services associated to a motor vehicle such as lights, suspension, clutch, or controls to enable the rider to control the machine properly.
At first instance Harrogate Justices, on February 21st 2000, found in favour of the Claimants and held that the Defendant had:
I.drove a motor vehicle, namely an unregistered motorised scooter, on a road while disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence, contrary to section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and
II.used a motor vehicle on a road when there was not in force in relation to that use such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third-party risks as complied with the requirements of Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988, contrary to section 143(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
The Defendant appeals the decision in the Queens Bench Division.
HELD:
Lord Justice Pill held that a motorised scooter known as a “Go-ped” was a motor vehicle for the purposes of section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and accordingly a driving licence and policy of third party insurance were required.
The main issue in the case was whether the unregistered motor scooter was a “motor vehicle” within the meaning of section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Section 185 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 defines a “motor vehicle” as;
“[a] mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads”
Despite both parties agreeing that the Go-ped was a “mechanically propelled vehicle” the issue of whether it was intended for use on the roads was more problematic.
The Defendant submitted that the Go-ped was not intended for use on roads and drew evidence from the Go-ped’s distributors’ literature which stated that it did not comply with UK vehicle safety standards and was not intended for operation on public streets, roads or pathways.
He also stated that the Go-ped did not comply with Construction and Use Regulations and UK vehicle safety standards as to satisfy road traffic legislation nor would it be accepted for registration by the Department of Transport. He suggested that this was clear evidence supporting the notion that it was not intended for road use.
While taking the Defendant’s submissions into consideration his Lordship said that the test to be applied in determining whether the Go-ped satisfied section185 was that laid down in Burns v Currell [1963] 2 ALL E.R. 297 namely whether a reasonable person looking at the vehicle would say that one of its users would be a road user.
The real question was whether some general use on the roads were contemplated as one of the uses and the justices had to ask whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that any reasonable person looking at the vehicle would say that one of it uses would use on the road.
Lord Justice Pill concluded that there was no obvious place of use other than a road that the Go-ped could be used. The Go-ped could not negotiate rough ground, soft or uneven surfaces and was not designed for use in a place other than a road, such as was a dumper truck used for road construction purposes. The temptation to use them on roads was considerable, notwithstanding their limitations. They provided a ready means of getting through traffic. Therefore, despite being unsafe to drive on roads, a reasonable person would contemplate that one of its uses would be general use on the roads.
Related posts:
