Davies v Heatley [1971] RTR 145 QBD 4th Feb 1971
4 FEBRUARY 1971 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DAVIES v HEATLEY [1971] R.T.R 145
LORD PARKER CJ, MELFORD STEVENSON and COOKE JJ
Traffic sign—Road marking—Sign not complying with regulations—Intermittent white line between two continuous while lines not prescribed distance apart—Whether 'prescribed' sign—Failure to comply with indication—Whether offence—Road Traffic Act 1960s 14(1)—Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 s 54(2)—-Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964 reg 23(1)(2)(, diagram 1013 (as amended by Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations 1966).
Section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 provides:
'Where . . . a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type . . , has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving ... a vehicle who ... ( fails to comply with the indication given by the sign, shall be liable' [to penalty],
Section 54(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 provides:
'Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations . . .'
Regulation 23 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964 (as amended)
provides:
'(1) A road marking for conveying the requirements specified in the next succeeding paragraph . . . shall be of the size and type shown in diagram 1013. (2) The requirements conveyed ... shall be . . . ( . . . every vehicle . . . shall be so driven as to keep the . . . 'line on the right hand . . . side of the vehicle.'
Diagram 1013 provides:
'...Longitudinal lines to indicate ... the requirements... prescribed by regulation 23(2) ...(See Direction 5A)'.
A bend in a road bore a traffic marking consisting of continuous double white lines and between them the remains of an intermittent white line with which the road had previously been marked; the distance between the continuous double white lines differed from the distance prescribed by diagram 1013 and regulation 23(1) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964, as amended by the Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations 1966 and section 54(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. The defendant, who drove a motor vehicle at the bend, did not keep to the left of the marking, and he was charged with contravening section 14(1) (A) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 by failing to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign. The justices were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign and that, although it did not strictly comply with the regulations, it was clearly visible and recognisable and, therefore, binding on him, and they convicted him.
On appeal against conviction :
Held, allowing the appeal, that the scheme of the legislation confined the offence to failure to comply with the prescribed sign (p 148E); and that, since the traffic marking did not conform strictly to the sign as prescribed by the regulation, no offence had been committed, and the conviction would be quashed.
Cases referred to in the judgment:
James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676: [1967] 2 WLR 1239; [1967] 1 All EH 1048.DC
Power v Davidson (1964) 62 LGR 320. DC
Reg. v Priest [1961] OWN 166
Additional case cited in argument: '
MacLeod v Hamilton. 1965 SLT 305
Case stated by Glamorgan Justices sitting at Pontardawe
On 30 April 1970 an information was preferred by the prosecutor, Ivor Heatley, against the defendant, Charles Russel Davies, that he, on 9 March 1970 at Lianguicke in Glamorgan being the person driving a vehicle, namely Morris motor lorry, registration number 190 DWN on a road, at Gelligron Hill, Pontardawe, did fail to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign, namely, did fail to keep to the left of a continuous white line placed on the left of a continuous white line, contrary to section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1960.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
The justices heard the information on 29 May 1970 and found the following facts:
At 3.40 pm on Monday 9 March 1970 Brian Williams, a police constable of the South Wales constabulary was on panda patrol duty in Gelligron Road, Pontardawe, and travelling down a hill in the direction of traffic lights. Proceeding in front of the constable were two heavily laden motor lorries travelling at a very slow speed. As a right-hand bend was being negotiated the constable saw the vehicle directly in front of him, Morris motor lorry registration number 190 DWN, pull out to its offside of the road, and in doing so cross continuous double white lines placed in the centre of the road. The vehicle then accelerated past the front lorry. Motor lorry registration number 190 DWN was stopped, and the constable spoke to the driver, the defendant, and told him that it was an offence to cross double continuous white lines placed on a road. When asked for an explanation the defendant made no reply. When told that he would be reported by the constable for the consideration of the question of proceedings being taken against the defendant for failing to conform to a traffic sign he, after caution, made no reply. The traffic sign in question was as shown in a photograph produced to the court and exhibited to the case and consisted of two continuous white lines with an intermittent white line in the centre. The sign was placed on the road at sometime in 1970, and the constable confirmed in evidence that the photograph showed the sign as it existed on the date of the alleged offence. It was contended by the defendant that there was no case for him to answer in so far as no offence in Law had been committed as the traffic sign in question was not a lawful sign within the meaning of section 54 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, and as prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964.
The Justices were referred to the following cases:
MacLeod v Hamilton. 1965 SLT 305
Miners v Gillard [1950] WN 347.DC
Reg v Priest [1961] OWN 166
On a case to answer being found the defendant elected to give evidence and stated that, as he was proceeding down the hill, around bends, he saw certain road markings on the road, namely, continuous while lines with an intermittent white line in the centre of same. He stated that he may have crossed the lines but thought he had not, the justices were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign in question; and that though the sign did not strictly comply with the Regulations in so far as there was an intermittent white line placed between two continuous white lines, the sign, which was situated on an 'S' bend, was clearly visible and recognisable and therefore, binding on the defendant. They accordingly, convicted the defendant and he was was fined £10, his licence was endorsed, and he was ordered to pay 10s costs.
The defendant appealed.
The question for the opinion of the Court was whether, in view of the justices' finding that the defendant fully appreciated the nature of the sign in question, they were correct in Law to decide that the intermittent white line between the continuous white lines did not affect the validity of the sign.
Anthony Kenny for the defendant
B R Oliver the prosecutor
Lord Parker CJ This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Glamorgan Justices sitting at Pontardawe, whereby they convicted the defendant of an offence contrary to section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, in that he did fail to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign, namely, that he failed to keep to the left of a continuous white line placed on the left of a continuous white line. There was evidence from the police that, on a bend in the road where there were two white lines, the defendant driving a heavily laden motor lorry went over the double white line in order to pass a slower moving lorry in front of him. Although, after the rejection of a submission of no case, the defendant did not admit that he had crossed the double white line, it is quite clear that, if nothing more was said, this is a plain case for a conviction. However, the matter does not end there, because the point taken before the justices and before this Court is that the double white line in this case did not conform to the type of white line laid down by the legislation.
A photograph is attached to the case which shows quite clearly that between the double white lines there is an old intermittent line, in other words it seems pretty certain that at one time on this bend there was the ordinary intermittent white line, but a time came when, as it were, superimposed on that and on either side of it were put these double white lines. The justices expressed their view, a view with which I have every sympathy, and one which could be said to be a common sense view, as follows:
'We were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign in question; and that though the sign did not strictly comply with the Regulations in so far as there was an intermittent white line placed between two continuous white line, the sign, which was situated on an "S" bend, was clearly visible and recognisable and, therefore, binding on the defendant'.
I have come to the conclusion, though with some reluctance, that the justices were wrong. The legislation in question makes it abundantly clear that there must be strict conformity with the traffic signs which are prescribed. One begins with section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960, which provides, so far as it is material:
Where...a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type.... has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who (a) neglects or refuses to stop the vehicle or to make it proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic when directed so to do by the police constable in the execution of his duty, or (b) fails to comply with the indication given by the sign, shall be liable on summary conviction . ..' to a penalty.
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 further provides by section 54(2): 'Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations made as aforesaid". The regulations in question here are the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964. Regulation 23(1) of those regulations provides:
'A road marking for conveying the requirements specified in the next succeeding paragraph...shall be of the size and type shown in diagram 1013', and though it is unnecessary to read it, regulation 23(2)(6) deals, among other matters, with signs of the type in question here, namely, the double white line. When one turns to diagram 1013, one finds laid down the markings, with which we are all familiar, of the double white line, and it provides what the width of each double white line should be and the distance between them. It is only necessary to add that the distance between them was in fact varied by the Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations 1966.
Accordingly, as it seems to me, the scheme of the legislation here is to confine the offence to a case where there has been failure to comply with the prescribed sign. One asks, therefore, here whether this was the prescribed sign. I thought at one point that it might be said that the old intermittent line, on a sensible approach, forms no part of the double white line sign, that it is old and it is just not completely rubbed out, but, as was pointed out, even if one assumed that it was subtracted and formed no part of the line itself, the distance between the two continuous white lines is a long way different from that prescribed by the regulations. Accordingly, as it seems to me, and apart from authority, much as one sympathises with the approach of the justices, it is impossible to say that an offence was committed.
The Court has been referred to a number of authorities, including — and I find it unnecessary to refer to them — James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676 and Power v Davidson (1964) 62 LGR 320, cases which were analogous in this sense, that it was held in each case that there was no offence of the type there alleged unless there had been complete compliance with the regulations.
Indeed, the only case to which the Court has been referred, and speaking for myself I am grateful for Mr Kenny's researches, which goes the other way is Reg. v Priest in Ontario, Canada [1961] OWN 166. It was a case in the Court of Appeal, and Roach J in giving the judgment of the court said, at p 168: 'On the other hand. a top sign that complies, though not strictly but so substantially with the regulations as reasonably to indicate that it is authoritative and erected by the competent authority in intended compliance with its power under the Act, in my opinion is equally binding on the driver, provided that he could have seen it if he was keeping a proper look out".
It is, however, to be observed there that the scheme of the legislation was substantially different. The Act in that case, the Highway Traffic Act R.S.O, 1960, c. 172, provided that a driver on approaching a stop sign at an intersection, 'shall bring the car or vehicle to a full stop...', and then the Act went on to provide that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations providing for the erection of signs on any highways and prescribing the type of signs to be erected and the location of each type of sign. One sees at ones that the Act did not make it an offence to fail to comply with a 'prescribed stop sign', but only with a stop sign. It seems to me that under that scheme of legislation it was permissible to take the view that the Court of Appeal took there and the justices took in the present case. Under the scheme of legislation, however, with which we are concerned, I see no escape from saying that here no offence was committed, and accordingly I would allow the appeal and quash the conviction.
Melford Stevenson J I agree.
Cooke J I also agree.
Appeal allowed with costs
Conviction quashed
Solicitors for the defendants: Tuck & Mann & Geffen S T D Jones & Co for Price Williams & Partners. Llandeilo
Solicitors for the prosecutor: Sharpe, Pritchard & Co for R H C Rowlands. Glamorgan
Reported by Mrs Celia Fox Barrister-at-Law
DAVIES v HEATLEY [1971] R.T.R 145
LORD PARKER CJ, MELFORD STEVENSON and COOKE JJ
Traffic sign—Road marking—Sign not complying with regulations—Intermittent white line between two continuous while lines not prescribed distance apart—Whether 'prescribed' sign—Failure to comply with indication—Whether offence—Road Traffic Act 1960s 14(1)—Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 s 54(2)—-Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964 reg 23(1)(2)(, diagram 1013 (as amended by Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations 1966).
Section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 provides:
'Where . . . a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type . . , has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving ... a vehicle who ... ( fails to comply with the indication given by the sign, shall be liable' [to penalty],
Section 54(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 provides:
'Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations . . .'
Regulation 23 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964 (as amended)
provides:
'(1) A road marking for conveying the requirements specified in the next succeeding paragraph . . . shall be of the size and type shown in diagram 1013. (2) The requirements conveyed ... shall be . . . ( . . . every vehicle . . . shall be so driven as to keep the . . . 'line on the right hand . . . side of the vehicle.'
Diagram 1013 provides:
'...Longitudinal lines to indicate ... the requirements... prescribed by regulation 23(2) ...(See Direction 5A)'.
A bend in a road bore a traffic marking consisting of continuous double white lines and between them the remains of an intermittent white line with which the road had previously been marked; the distance between the continuous double white lines differed from the distance prescribed by diagram 1013 and regulation 23(1) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964, as amended by the Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations 1966 and section 54(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. The defendant, who drove a motor vehicle at the bend, did not keep to the left of the marking, and he was charged with contravening section 14(1) (A) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 by failing to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign. The justices were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign and that, although it did not strictly comply with the regulations, it was clearly visible and recognisable and, therefore, binding on him, and they convicted him.
On appeal against conviction :
Held, allowing the appeal, that the scheme of the legislation confined the offence to failure to comply with the prescribed sign (p 148E); and that, since the traffic marking did not conform strictly to the sign as prescribed by the regulation, no offence had been committed, and the conviction would be quashed.
Cases referred to in the judgment:
James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676: [1967] 2 WLR 1239; [1967] 1 All EH 1048.DC
Power v Davidson (1964) 62 LGR 320. DC
Reg. v Priest [1961] OWN 166
Additional case cited in argument: '
MacLeod v Hamilton. 1965 SLT 305
Case stated by Glamorgan Justices sitting at Pontardawe
On 30 April 1970 an information was preferred by the prosecutor, Ivor Heatley, against the defendant, Charles Russel Davies, that he, on 9 March 1970 at Lianguicke in Glamorgan being the person driving a vehicle, namely Morris motor lorry, registration number 190 DWN on a road, at Gelligron Hill, Pontardawe, did fail to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign, namely, did fail to keep to the left of a continuous white line placed on the left of a continuous white line, contrary to section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1960.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
The justices heard the information on 29 May 1970 and found the following facts:
At 3.40 pm on Monday 9 March 1970 Brian Williams, a police constable of the South Wales constabulary was on panda patrol duty in Gelligron Road, Pontardawe, and travelling down a hill in the direction of traffic lights. Proceeding in front of the constable were two heavily laden motor lorries travelling at a very slow speed. As a right-hand bend was being negotiated the constable saw the vehicle directly in front of him, Morris motor lorry registration number 190 DWN, pull out to its offside of the road, and in doing so cross continuous double white lines placed in the centre of the road. The vehicle then accelerated past the front lorry. Motor lorry registration number 190 DWN was stopped, and the constable spoke to the driver, the defendant, and told him that it was an offence to cross double continuous white lines placed on a road. When asked for an explanation the defendant made no reply. When told that he would be reported by the constable for the consideration of the question of proceedings being taken against the defendant for failing to conform to a traffic sign he, after caution, made no reply. The traffic sign in question was as shown in a photograph produced to the court and exhibited to the case and consisted of two continuous white lines with an intermittent white line in the centre. The sign was placed on the road at sometime in 1970, and the constable confirmed in evidence that the photograph showed the sign as it existed on the date of the alleged offence. It was contended by the defendant that there was no case for him to answer in so far as no offence in Law had been committed as the traffic sign in question was not a lawful sign within the meaning of section 54 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, and as prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964.
The Justices were referred to the following cases:
MacLeod v Hamilton. 1965 SLT 305
Miners v Gillard [1950] WN 347.DC
Reg v Priest [1961] OWN 166
On a case to answer being found the defendant elected to give evidence and stated that, as he was proceeding down the hill, around bends, he saw certain road markings on the road, namely, continuous while lines with an intermittent white line in the centre of same. He stated that he may have crossed the lines but thought he had not, the justices were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign in question; and that though the sign did not strictly comply with the Regulations in so far as there was an intermittent white line placed between two continuous white lines, the sign, which was situated on an 'S' bend, was clearly visible and recognisable and therefore, binding on the defendant. They accordingly, convicted the defendant and he was was fined £10, his licence was endorsed, and he was ordered to pay 10s costs.
The defendant appealed.
The question for the opinion of the Court was whether, in view of the justices' finding that the defendant fully appreciated the nature of the sign in question, they were correct in Law to decide that the intermittent white line between the continuous white lines did not affect the validity of the sign.
Anthony Kenny for the defendant
B R Oliver the prosecutor
Lord Parker CJ This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Glamorgan Justices sitting at Pontardawe, whereby they convicted the defendant of an offence contrary to section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, in that he did fail to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign, namely, that he failed to keep to the left of a continuous white line placed on the left of a continuous white line. There was evidence from the police that, on a bend in the road where there were two white lines, the defendant driving a heavily laden motor lorry went over the double white line in order to pass a slower moving lorry in front of him. Although, after the rejection of a submission of no case, the defendant did not admit that he had crossed the double white line, it is quite clear that, if nothing more was said, this is a plain case for a conviction. However, the matter does not end there, because the point taken before the justices and before this Court is that the double white line in this case did not conform to the type of white line laid down by the legislation.
A photograph is attached to the case which shows quite clearly that between the double white lines there is an old intermittent line, in other words it seems pretty certain that at one time on this bend there was the ordinary intermittent white line, but a time came when, as it were, superimposed on that and on either side of it were put these double white lines. The justices expressed their view, a view with which I have every sympathy, and one which could be said to be a common sense view, as follows:
'We were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign in question; and that though the sign did not strictly comply with the Regulations in so far as there was an intermittent white line placed between two continuous white line, the sign, which was situated on an "S" bend, was clearly visible and recognisable and, therefore, binding on the defendant'.
I have come to the conclusion, though with some reluctance, that the justices were wrong. The legislation in question makes it abundantly clear that there must be strict conformity with the traffic signs which are prescribed. One begins with section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960, which provides, so far as it is material:
Where...a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type.... has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who (a) neglects or refuses to stop the vehicle or to make it proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic when directed so to do by the police constable in the execution of his duty, or (b) fails to comply with the indication given by the sign, shall be liable on summary conviction . ..' to a penalty.
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 further provides by section 54(2): 'Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations made as aforesaid". The regulations in question here are the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964. Regulation 23(1) of those regulations provides:
'A road marking for conveying the requirements specified in the next succeeding paragraph...shall be of the size and type shown in diagram 1013', and though it is unnecessary to read it, regulation 23(2)(6) deals, among other matters, with signs of the type in question here, namely, the double white line. When one turns to diagram 1013, one finds laid down the markings, with which we are all familiar, of the double white line, and it provides what the width of each double white line should be and the distance between them. It is only necessary to add that the distance between them was in fact varied by the Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations 1966.
Accordingly, as it seems to me, the scheme of the legislation here is to confine the offence to a case where there has been failure to comply with the prescribed sign. One asks, therefore, here whether this was the prescribed sign. I thought at one point that it might be said that the old intermittent line, on a sensible approach, forms no part of the double white line sign, that it is old and it is just not completely rubbed out, but, as was pointed out, even if one assumed that it was subtracted and formed no part of the line itself, the distance between the two continuous white lines is a long way different from that prescribed by the regulations. Accordingly, as it seems to me, and apart from authority, much as one sympathises with the approach of the justices, it is impossible to say that an offence was committed.
The Court has been referred to a number of authorities, including — and I find it unnecessary to refer to them — James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676 and Power v Davidson (1964) 62 LGR 320, cases which were analogous in this sense, that it was held in each case that there was no offence of the type there alleged unless there had been complete compliance with the regulations.
Indeed, the only case to which the Court has been referred, and speaking for myself I am grateful for Mr Kenny's researches, which goes the other way is Reg. v Priest in Ontario, Canada [1961] OWN 166. It was a case in the Court of Appeal, and Roach J in giving the judgment of the court said, at p 168: 'On the other hand. a top sign that complies, though not strictly but so substantially with the regulations as reasonably to indicate that it is authoritative and erected by the competent authority in intended compliance with its power under the Act, in my opinion is equally binding on the driver, provided that he could have seen it if he was keeping a proper look out".
It is, however, to be observed there that the scheme of the legislation was substantially different. The Act in that case, the Highway Traffic Act R.S.O, 1960, c. 172, provided that a driver on approaching a stop sign at an intersection, 'shall bring the car or vehicle to a full stop...', and then the Act went on to provide that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations providing for the erection of signs on any highways and prescribing the type of signs to be erected and the location of each type of sign. One sees at ones that the Act did not make it an offence to fail to comply with a 'prescribed stop sign', but only with a stop sign. It seems to me that under that scheme of legislation it was permissible to take the view that the Court of Appeal took there and the justices took in the present case. Under the scheme of legislation, however, with which we are concerned, I see no escape from saying that here no offence was committed, and accordingly I would allow the appeal and quash the conviction.
Melford Stevenson J I agree.
Cooke J I also agree.
Appeal allowed with costs
Conviction quashed
Solicitors for the defendants: Tuck & Mann & Geffen S T D Jones & Co for Price Williams & Partners. Llandeilo
Solicitors for the prosecutor: Sharpe, Pritchard & Co for R H C Rowlands. Glamorgan
Reported by Mrs Celia Fox Barrister-at-Law
posted by Neil Herron at 12:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home