Divisional Court Cases
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835301700104 |
| Published date | 01 January 1953 |
| Date | 01 January 1953 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court Cases
DUAL-PURPOSE
VEHICLES
Lawrence v. Howlett
T
HE
RE are to-day on
the
roads many pedal cycles
to
which a motor has been attached so
that
it
is of con-
siderable interest to
the
public
and
the
Police to know
whether such a vehicle is a
'motor
vehicle' within
the
meaning of
the
Road Traffic Act, 1930. Thus it is par-
ticularly important from
the
point of view of knowing
whether
the
driver of such a vehicle is under a
duty
to
comply with
the
requirements as to insurance contained in
s. 35 of
the
above Act.
This very question was raised
by
the
above case (1952,
2
All
E.R.
74) in which
the
defendant was charged before
the
Brentford (Middlesex) justices with using a motor
vehicle on a road without there being in force in relation to
its user a policy of
third
party
insurance. The facts proved
or admitted were
that
the
defendant was riding apedal
cycle
to
which an auxiliary motor
had
been attached.
There was petrol in
the
tank
of
the
bicycle
but
the
auxiliary
motor was not in working condition in
that
the
cylinder,
piston
and
connecting rod
had
been removed. The justices
held
that
the
vehicle was a "mechanically propelled vehicle"
within
the
meaning of s. 1 of
the
Road Traffic Act 1930
and
accordingly convicted
the
defendant. The defendant
appealed by case
stated
against this decision
and
on
the
23rd May, 1952
the
appeal was allowed
by
aDivisional
Court consisting of Lord Goddard C.J., Devlin
and
Gorman
JJ.
The Lord Chief Justice pointed
out
that
there was no
definition
of'
motor vehicle' in
the
Road Traffic Act 1930.
Sec. 1 of
the
Act merely
stated
that-
" This
Part
of this Act shall apply to all mechanically
propelled vehicles intended or adapted for use on
roads (in this Act referred
to
as
'motor
vehicles ')
"28
DIVISIONAL COURT CASES 29
These were words of classification and
not
definition. This
vehicle
had
been intended (i.e. designed) to be used as a
mechanically propelled vehicle
and
also as a pedal cycle,
but
at
the
time of
the
alleged offence
it
could
not
be mechan-
ically propelled.
In
these circumstances in his opinion
the
vehicle could not properly be described as a tmotor vehicle'.
Devlin J. delivered a judgment in similar terms. He
pointed
out
that
amotor-car remained amotor vehicle even
though
it
was driven down hill with the motor disengaged,
but
where a vehicle
had
two means of propulsion, one
mechanical and
the
other non-mechanical, regard should
be
had
both
to its working condition and
the
use which
was being made of
it
at
the material time.
Both
the
learned judges
stated
that
they
had
arrived
at
their decision with some hesitation and
that
their decision
depended entirely on
the
particular facts of this case.
It
is accordingly areasonably clear inference from this case
that
adual purpose vehicle which has a motor capable of
being used is a tmotor vehicle' within
the
meaning of
the
Road Traffic Act notwithstanding
that
it
is
at
aparticular
time being used as a pedal cycle.
PUBLIC CARRIER'S LICENCE
A.
F. Wardhaugh Ltd. v. Mace
The above case (1952, 1
All
E.R. 28) raised two
distinct points
both
of which are of general interest. The
appellants who carried on business as haulage contractors
were on
the
24th October, 1951 convicted
by
the
City of
Liverpool stipendiary magistrate with failing to comply
with
the
condition of a public carrier's licence in
that
on
the
21st
and
22nd February 1951
they
carried goods
at
Liver-
pool for hire or reward, when
the
authorised.vehicle was
more
than
25 miles from its operating centre in contra-
vention of s. 52 of
the
Transport Act, 1947.
The facts as found
by
the
magistrate were
that
at
10 p.m. on
the
20th February 1951
the
vehicle in respect of
which
the
appellants held a public carrier's licence left
Newcastle-on-Tyne, its operating centre, with a load of
fish which was carried to Fleetwood for hire or reward.
The vehicle reached Fleetwood on
the
morning of
the
21st
February
and
was on
that
day
driven empty to Liverpool.
To continue reading
Request your trial