Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 July 1940 |
| Published date | 01 July 1940 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4001300302 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Recent Judicial Decisions
PROOF
OF
FAILURE
TO OBSERVE
TRAFFIC
SIGN
Swift v. Barrett
THE decision of the Divisional Court (Hawke, Charles and
Hilbery,
JJ.)
on the 9th April last in the above case requires
to be carefully noted by all who are responsible for the due
enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts.
For
this decision has
shown that what had generally been thought to be adequate
evidence of non-compliance with the provisions of the law
relating to traffic signs, did not in law constitute evidence of
any offence at all.
The
material facts of the case fall within a very short
compass. A Mr. Swift, the appellant, was driving his motor
car along the Amesbury road when on approaching the
junction of that road and the Salisbury-Warminster road he
came to a sign bearing the
words"
Halt at major road ahead."
He did not halt at the major road ahead and he was stopped
by a police officer who pointed this out to him. Thereafter
information was preferred against the appellant for having con-
travened sec. 49 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
The
above
facts were adduced in support of this charge at the hearing of
the information by the Warminster (Wilts) magistrates who
upon this evidence convicted the appellant and fined him
lOS.
Against this conviction the appellant appealed to the Divisional
Court by way of case stated.
The
relevant provisions of sec. 49 of the Road Traffic
Act, 1930, as amended by the
Third
Schedule of the Road
Traffic Act, 1934, are as follows:
" Where
...
any traffic sign, being a sign for regu-
lating the movement of traffic. . . and being of the
261
To continue reading
Request your trial