Road traffic law

Tachograph - inspection Section 99(1)(bb) of the Transport Act 1968 empowers an authorised person to require 'any person' (such as the operator of a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle) to produce any record sheet which that person is required to retain by article 14(2) of the EEC Regulation 3821/85 (the Tachograph Regulation) (or is required to produce under article 15(7) of that regulation) for inspection and copying.

Where there are few records (and copying facilities are available), production of the records to the authorised person would be likely to meet the requirements of section 99(1)(bb).

Where there are many records or they are such that proper inspection and copying is only possible with equipment not immediately available, the authorised person has the right to take the records away for a reasonable period of time, and an offence would be committed if the authorised person is not permitted to do so (per Lord Slynn of Hadley in Cantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate (2001) The Times, 28 November).Tachograph - broken sealWhere a vehicle is required to be fitted with a tachograph, it is a defence to a charge of using (or causing or permitting the use of) the vehicle when a seal on the recording equipment was not intact, to show (among other things) that the breaking or removal of the seal could not have been avoided (section 97(4)(a) of the Transport Act 1968).However, to establish this defence, it is not sufficient for the defendant merely to show that the breaking or removal of the seal could not have been avoided by himself; he must show that the breaking or removal of the seal could not have been avoided 'in itself' (Vehicle Inspectorate v Sam Anderson (Newhouse) Ltd (2001) The Times, 15 November).Breath-testing deviceThe fact that a breath-testing device does not meet the prescribed specifications or that it does not function to the required standards is not in itself sufficient to make it unreliable so as to vitiate the validity of the breath-testing procedure.

To mount a successful defence to a drink/ drive charge on the basis of the unreliability of the device, it must be shown that the defect in the device is relevant to the proceedings before the court (DPP v Brown, DPP v Teixeira (2001) The Times, 3 December).Private hire vehiclesA person aggrieved by a decision of a local authority to refuse the grant of a driver's licence for a private hire vehicle or any conditions attached to the grant of such licence has a right of appeal to a magistrates' court under section 52 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.However, the right of appeal only arises if an application for a licence has in fact been made (Peddubriwny v Cambridge City Council [2001] EWHC Admin 200, [2001] RTR 461).

By Paul Niekirk, barrister