Oxford v Austin [1981]

FACTS:-

In determining whether a car park is a “road” within s.196(1) of the 1972 Act justices should consider first whether there was a definable way between two points over which vehicles could pass, and second, whether the public or a section of the public had access to the road. D left an uninsured vehicle without an MOT certificate in a car park and was charged with unlawful use of the vehicle on a road contrary to s.196(1). The justices held that only a restricted class of persons had access to the car park and it was, therefore, not a road.

The Defendant left his uninsured motor vehicle, without a MOT test certificate in a car park with parking spaces marked by white lines.  The Defendant was charged with unlawful use of the vehicle on a road within the definition in section 196(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 .

Section 191(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 provides:

‘…”road” means … any … road to which the public has access …’

The justices were of opinion that the area of the car park was privately owned, was primarily intended for the use of shop workers, residents of the flats and shoppers, for the parking of vehicles as indicated by signs at the entrance and white line markings, and that the area was one to which only a restricted class of persons had access by virtue of restrictions on the entrance and exit to the are.  Therefore the car park was not a road within the statutory meaning. The Justices dismissed the information.

The prosecutor appealed. 

HELD:-

The justices had not first found as a fact that the car park was a definable way between two points over which vehicles could pass and had gone on to consider whether the public had access.  It was held the justices had misdirected themselves and the case should be remitted.

Kilner Brown delivered the first judgment.  In the judgment Kilner Brown referred to the case Griffin v Squires [1958] 1 WLR 1106 the case was sometimes stated as authority for saying that a car park cannot be a road.  Kilner Brown disagreed with the judgment and held that it was not correct to say that a car park could not be a road.  Kilner Brown held that there must be many cases where there is obviously a definable way over which vehicles may pass which in plain common sense qualifies as a road.  Therefore in these cases Kilner Brown suggested this was a question of fact. 

Kilner Brown concluded his judgment by saying that in every case where there is a car park it is for the justices to decide as a question of fact along the lines of all the authorities whether it is a road or not, and then they have to go on to consider the second limb, which is whether or not the public have access.  By reason of fact Kilner Brown found that the case lacked a finding of fact of the first question as to whether the car park was a road.  Kilner Brown allowed the appeal to the extent that it was to be remitted to the justices for them to reconsider the question along those lines. 

Donaldson LJ agreed with the judgment. 

The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the justices for reconsideration.  There was an order for payment of prosecutor’s costs out of central funds.

Related posts:

1. Cox v White [1976]
2. Griffin v Squires [1958]
3. Brewer v Director Of Public Prosecutions [2005]
4. Bugge v Taylor 1941
5. Adams v Commissioner of Police 1980