Road traffic lawBy Paul Niekirk, barristerArrestA person who strikes a police officer on being informed that he has been arrested following a positive roadside breath test cannot plead an honest belief that he had not provided a positive breath test in defence to a charge of assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension (Offences against the Person Act 1861, s.38) (R v Lee (2000) The Times, 24 October).Breath specimenA motorist was charged with failing to supply a specimen of breath without reasonable excuse.

At her trial her doctor gave evidence that she was prone to panic attacks when under stress requiring chemical intervention.

The motorist had not taken medication for several days before her arrest, and the justices noting her demeanour in court concluded that she had suffered a panic attack at the police station; this constituted a reasonable excuse for not supplying a specimen and the motorist was acquitted.

The prosecution appeal was dismissed (DPP v Falzarano (2000) The Times, 24 November), the Divisional Court being satisfied that the justices had applied the proper tests and had been entitled to take into account her demeanour in court.DisqualificationA driver was convicted of a speeding offence which involved discretionary disqualification and the 11 penalty points previously accumulated by him also left him on the verge of disqualification under the totting-up procedure.

The proper approach of the court to the issue of disqualification in such cases should be to consider first the issue of the discretionary disqualification under s.34(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in respect of the offence before the court; but, in its consideration, the court should bear in mind the driver's whole record and the knowledge that if it thought that the driver should suffer a longer period of disqualification because of totting-up that could be achieved by not disqualifying him under s.34(2) (whereupon penalty points would be added to his licence and could lead to a totting-up disqualification ) (Jones v DPP (2000) The Times, 20 October).DriverThe admission made by a person in response to a statutory requirement (s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) that he had been the driver of a vehicle at a time when an offence is alleged to have been committed (in the particular instance, driving with excess alcohol in the blood) may, in the absence of any suggestion of improper coercion or oppression, be relied on by the prosecution at that person's trial without breach of the right to a fair trial under art.6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Stott v Brown (2000) The Times, 6 December, PC).Motor vehicleOn an appeal against a decision of justices dismissing an information that a motorist had driven while disqualified and without insurance, the Divisional Court held that a motorised scooter (a 'Go-ped') was a motor vehicle for the purposes of the road traffic legislation, as a reasonable person would say that one of the scooter's uses would be general use on roads, despite the fact that the distributor's literature stated that it was not intended for such use and should not be used in traffic (DPP v Saddington (2000) The Times, 1 November, applying Burns v Currell [1963] 2 QB 433).Plying for hireA hackney carriage which is positioned on the forecourt of a railway station in order to attract custom from the public using an adjoining street is projecting an offer of services to members of the public in that street and accordingly requires a licence for plying for hire in a public street under s.38 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, even though the forecourt itself is private property (Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling (2000) The Times, 16 November, applying Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830).