Leathley v Tatton [1980]

FACTS:

The Defendant and two friends were looking at a car with a view to buying it.  The owner was not there, but they managed to open the car.  One of the friends sat in the driving seat while the Defendant pushed the car.  When it started, the Defendant jumped into the passenger seat.  He was at no time involved in driving the car.  He was charged with using a motor vehicle on a road without there being in force an insurance policy or specified security in respect of third party risks, in contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1972 s.143.

s.143 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 provides:

‘… it shall not be lawful for a person to use … a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person … such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act; and if a person acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence …’

The justices dismissed the information holding that since the Defendant was not controlling the car he could not be said to be ‘using it’.  The evidence disclosed no case to answer and the Justices dismissed the information.

The prosecutor appealed. 

HELD:

On appeal by the prosecutor it was held by Ackner J that the defendant was using the car directly for his own purposes, in that the car was set in motion as a joint enterprise.  It was therefore irrelevant that someone else sat in the driver’s seat.  The case would be remitted to the justices with a direction to continue in the hearing and the appeal was allowed. 

Ackner J referred to case law in his judgement.    The case of Brown v Roberts [1965] 1 QB 1 was a case which concerned civil liability and did not reflect the meaning of ‘use’ on the facts of this case.  In Cobb v Williams [1973] RTR 113 where Lord Widgery CJ said that the owner was undoubtedly using the car directly for his own purposes and in person; the fact that he was being driven by somebody else on his behalf was totally irrelevant. This was the closest of the cases and the one on which the Justices should have based their decision and on the facts it was clearly a case in which the Defendant had in fact been using the car jointly with his friend, who was at the driving wheel. For those reasons Ackner J held that the decision was wrong and the matter should go back to the justices for them further to consider the matter.

Geoffrey Lane LJ I agreed with Ackner J. On the facts he found that the defendant was plainly using the car himself as a principal, and he was also aiding and abetting the friend who was actually sitting behind the steering wheel. There was in those circumstances a case to answer. Consequently, this matter must go back to the justices for them to continue the hearing.

This appeal was therefore allowed.

No related posts.