FACTS:-

A man was charged and convicted on a complaint which found that he was under the influence of drink to such an extent that he was incapable of having proper control of his motor car on the road in a courtyard, therefore in breach of s.15 of the Road Traffic Act 1930.

From a bend in a main road, a causeway road led southwards to a grain merchant’s premises. On the east side of the causeway road were buildings and on the west side was a courtyard, which was about 18 inches above the level of the causeway road and tapered until it reached 10 yards from the south end. It was only possible for a vehicle to gain access to the courtyard by proceeding along the causeway road almost to the grain merchant’s premises. Entry to the courtyard at its south end was gained by a stair leading off the courtyard, which gave access to no other premises. Members of the public had access to the courtyard from the main road through the bend, and the courtyard was occasionally used for turning purposes by motor vehicles leaving the grain merchant’s premises.

The accused was found asleep at the wheel of his car parked in the north-west corner of the courtyard.

s.121(1) of the Road Traffic Act defines “road” as

“any highway and any other road to which the public has access.”

The Defendant appealed.

HELD:-

The questions of law for the opinion of the Court were;

1.)   On the facts of the case was the courtyard a road under the Road Traffic Act?

2.)   On the facts should the appellant be convicted?

It was held that the courtyard, although the public had access to it, was not a road within the meaning of s.121(1) Road Traffic Act 1930 and the conviction was quashed.

Lord Justice-Clerk held that in view of the peculiar character of the courtyard, it was found impossible to regard the courtyard as a road within the definition of the Statute and therefore held that the Sheriff was not entitled to convict.

Lord Jamieson stated in his judgment that the courtyard did not give access to any other premises and in those circumstances did not consider the courtyard could be a road.  Lord Jamieson did make it clear that the decision was based on the position and layout of this courtyard and that there may be other courtyards which could properly be described as roads within the sense of the statute.

Lord Stevenson agreed with the judgments.

The court answered both questions of law in the negative and quashed the conviction.

Related posts:

1. Buchanan v Motor Insurance Bureau 1955
2. Harrison v Hill [1932]
3. Bugge v Taylor 1941