R v MacDonagh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 20 February 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Crim J0220-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 4479/C/73 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 20 February 1974 |
[1974] EWCA Crim J0220-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Lord Justice Scarman
Mr. Justice Thesiger
Mr. Justice Bristow
and
Mr. Justice May
No. 4479/C/73
MR. P. J. MARTIN appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. J. RANT appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
On the 15th August last year, at the Inner London Crown Court, the Appellant was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 of driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified. He was fined £20 with one month's imprisonment in default and his licence was endorsed. He was also ordered to pay £10 costs.
He now appeals against his conviction by leave of the single Judge.
It was not disputed that on the 6th September 1972, at a time when the Appellant was disqualified from driving, his motor car, a Triumph 2000, was in Cornford Grove, London, S. W. 12. A police officer had told him to move it as it was causing an obstruction, and some 10 minutes later when the police officer returned to the scene he found the Appellant in the process of manoeuvring the car. There was a conflict of evidence as to whether the engine was running, the police officer maintaining that it was, at all events for part of the time, whereas the Appellant contended that it was not. If the police officer's version of the facts was right there seems little doubt that this man was properly convicted, but the learned Recorder left to the Jury, as he was bound to do, the issue of whether the police officer or the Appellant had correctly stated the facts.
The Appellant's version was that he had pushed the car standing with his two feet on the road putting his shoulder against the door pillar and putting one hand inside the car on the steering wheel in order to control its movement. The learned Recorder directed the Jury that even if they found that the facts were, or might have been, as thus described by the Appellant, it would still be proper to describe him as driving the car and thus guilty of the offence if he was "in a substantial sense controlling the movement and direction of the car." The matter now comes before this Court on a short but important issue, namely, whether the learned Recorder should have directed the Jury that if they thought the facts were, or might have been, as stated by the Appellant, then he was not driving and therefore entitled to an acquittal.
By Section 99 of the Road Traffic Act, 1972, it is provided that "if a person disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence… (b) while he is so disqualified drives on a road a motor vehicle….. he shall be guilty of an offence." Numerous other provisions of the same Act make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle when lacking some necessary qualification. Thus, under Section 84, a person may not drive unless he has the appropriate driving licence. The Act does not define the word "drive" and in its simplest meaning we think that it refers to a person using the driver's controls for the purpose of directing the movement of the vehicle. It matters not that the vehicle is not moving under its own power, or driven by the force of gravity, or even that it is being pushed by other well-wishers. The essence of driving is the use of the driver's controls in order to direct the movement, however that movement is produced.
There are an infinite number of ways in which a person may control the movement of a motor vehicle, apart from the orthodox one of sitting in the driving seat and using the engine for propulsion. He may be coasting down a hill with the gears in neutral and the engine switched off; he may be steering a vehicle which is being towed by another. As has already been pointed out, he may be sitting in the driving seat whilst others push, or half sitting in the driving seat but keeping one foot on the road in order to induce the car to move. Finally, as in the present case, he may be standing in the road and himself pushing the car with or without using the steering wheel to direct it. Although the word "drive" must be given a wide meaning, the Courts must be alert to see that the net is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gunnell v DPP
-
DPP v Alderton
...of the verb "to drive", namely to operate a vehicle controlling its direction and speed. 8 The justices were referred to the case of R v MacDonagh [1974] RTR 372, to which I will refer in a few moments. In the case stated, the justices said as follows: "6. We were of the opinion that the re......
- Caise v Wright
- McKoen v Ellis
-
Table of Cases
...354, DC! 181 .................................................................... Lowden, DPP v [1993] RTR 349, DC! 313 MacDonagh, R v [1974] QB 448, [1974] 2 WLR 529, [1974] 2 All ER 257, ....................................................................... ! [1974] RTR 372, CA! 420 , 42......
-
Definitions
...the driving seat, with the engine running and the lights on, waiting for the tide to recede from a causeway, was driving. R v MacDonagh [1974] QB 448, [1974] 2 WLR 529, [1974] 2 All ER 257, [1974] RTR 372, 1 February 1974, CA “Driving” means the use of the driver’s controls to direct the mo......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...s. 170 of the 1988 Act.The authorities considered by the Court were Pinner vEverett above, Edkins vKnowles [19731Crim LR 446; RvMcDonagh [1974] RTR 372; and RvRoberts 128 JP395, however, in all of these cases the court had been concerned with whether the personwas 'driving' the motor vehicl......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...the acquittal of McQuaid.However, in 1974 theCourtof Appeal expresseddoubtas to thecorrectness ofthatdictum. In R. v. MacDonagh [1974] Q.B. 448 theaccused was not actually in the car. He was walking alongside it,occasionally adjusting the steering wheel. He was held not to bedriving, but of......