Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X7504800307 |
| Published date | 01 July 1975 |
| Date | 01 July 1975 |
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
PROFESSOR
1.
C.
WOOD,
C.B.E.,
LL.M.
The University of Sheffield,
Legal Correspondent of The Police Journal
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
PEDESTRIAN NOT CROSSING
Gullen v. Ford [1975] 1 W.L.R. 335 Divisional Court
This appeal took the form of the consideration of two cases
together. They raised the same point of law and the decisions had
been inconsistent. The first case, Gullen v. Ford was before New-
ham justices. The accused was alleged to have driven his car past
astationary
car
which was waiting for someone to use a zebra
crossing. The pedestrian had not at the time stepped on to the
crossing. The defendant said on being stopped that he thought
that
the other vehicle was about to park at the roadside. The legal
point raised on his behalf was
that
the stationary car had not
stopped for the purpose of reg. 8 of the
"Zebra"
Crossing Regula-
tion. 1971. as it was not at
that
time affording precedence to a
pedestrian on the crossing.
It
had stopped as a common courtesy.
It followed in the submission of the defence
that
reg. 10(b) of
the same regulation could not apply because it specifically referred
to a vehicle "stopped for the purpose of complying with reg. 8."
The magistrates accepted this plea. dismissed the information and
awarded £15 costs. The prosecutor appealed.
The
second case, Prowse v. Clarke, came before the Metropoli-
tan stipendiary magistrate at Camberwell Green. The salient facts
were exactly the same. A police solo motor cycle was stationary
waiting for a woman to cross when the accused overtook in his mini.
The pedestrian remained on the pavement. The defence took the
same point -that the pedestrian was not on the crossing being
afforded precedence so reg. 8 and reg. 10. could not app!y. The
magistrate rejected this plea. He maintained that the purpose of
reg. 10 was to stop over-taking at zebra crossings. The vehicle in
question had stopped for the purpose of reg. 8 so an offence had
been committed by the over-taking. The defendant appealed.
Both appeals were taken together in the Divisional Court and
indeed the facts of the cases, which were not disputed, left an
identical legal point. Ashworth. J .. said that the crucial phrase in
reg. 10(b) was "which stationary vehicle is stopped for the purpose
of complying with reg. 8." Ashworth. J.. first made it clear that the
regulation was meant to stop over-taking. He felt
that
the vehicle
that
had
stopped was doing so because of the pedestrian crossing
2-17
July /975
To continue reading
Request your trial