Road traffic law

By Paul Niekirk, barrister

Abuse of process

A driver was charged with driving with excess alcohol, failing to stop after an accident, and failing to report an accident.

The prosecution withdrew the first charge, and she entered pleas of guilty to the others.

After the justices had retired, the prosecutor realised that she had taken an erroneous view of the law and sought to reinstate the charge of driving with excess alcohol.

The driver maintained that an agreement had been reached between her and the prosecution before the hearing whereby the prosecution would withdraw this charge and she would plead guilty to the others.

The justices found that an agreement had been reached, and that reinstatement of the charge of driving with excess alcohol would be an abuse of process.

On the prosecutor's appeal (DPP v Edgar (2000) 164 JP 471), the Divisional Court ruled that the existence of an agreement between the parties was a matter for the justices.

But even so, the justices had discretion whether or not to permit reinstatement of the charge.

The court doubted whether the driver was prejudiced by the attempt at reinstatement, but it felt such agreements should in general be adhered to.

The appeal was dismissed.

Sentencing

It is not normally appropriate to order a passenger in a car who is guilty of aggravated vehicle-taking to take an extended driving test (R v Wiggins [2000] The Times, 23 June) following R v Bradshaw (see [1995] Gazette, 1 February, 36).

Maintenance of highways

The duty of a highway authority under s.41(1) of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the highway does not extend to a duty to remove ice and snow (Goodes v East Sussex County Council [2000] 1 WLR 1356) and, accordingly, a motorist who had skidded on an icy road could not recover damages on the basis of a failure by the highway authority to prevent the formation of ice by spreading salt and grit.

Private hire vehicles

An operator successfully appealed to a magistrates' court against the refusal of a local licensing authority to renew his licence to operate private hire cars.

On such appeals, costs should not necessarily follow the event; the justices should have regard to any financial prejudice to the successful appellant if he was not given costs, and to the prospect of public authorities exercising statutory duties being deterred from making honest, reasonable and apparently sound decisions in the public interest by fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if their decisions were successfully challenged (Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth [2000] The Times, 31 May).