Silviu Croitoru v The Crown Prosecution Service
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Holroyde,Lord Justice Lloyd Jones |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1645 (Admin) |
| Date | 11 February 2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/2980/2015 |
[2016] EWHC 1645 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Lloyd Jones
Mr Justice Holroyde
CO/2980/2015
Ms J Greenhalgh (instructed by Stevens Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr M Bisgrove (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an appeal by way of case stated against the decision of the Crown Court at Stoke on Trent on 13 March 2015 dismissing Mr Croitoru's appeal against conviction of an offence of driving with excess alcohol. There were initially a number of defects in the drafting of the case and the preparation of the appeal. These have, however, been resolved by compliance with directions helpfully given by Ouseley J. The facts were not in dispute and can be very briefly summarised. On the night of 7 August 2014, Mr Croitoru drove a vehicle described as a Motability scooter on a dual carriageway section of the A34 trunk road. He was seen to be weaving from side to side. A concerned bystander called the police. The officer who attended found that Mr Croitoru showed all the signs of intoxication. A subsequent breath test showed that the level of alcohol in his system was nearly three times the permitted limit. Mr Croitoru told the police that he had bought the scooter for his elderly father. He said: "It came without a battery. I fitted one and took it for a test drive to see how far it would go."
Mr Croitoru was charged with an offence contrary to section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act") which provides:
(1) If a person—
(a) drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or
(b) is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place,
(c) after consuming so much alcohol that the
(d) proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine
(e) exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an
(f) offence."
Section of 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 includes the following definition:
(a) "(1) In this Act—
(b) … 'motor vehicle' means, subject to section 20 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which makes special provision about invalid carriages, within the meaning of that Act), a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads…"
Section 185 also gives a definition of the phrase "invalid carriage" for the purposes of the 1988 Act, but that definition is not relevant to this appeal and I need not recite it.
The Magistrates' Court convicted Mr Croitoru. He appealed to the Crown Court. At the hearing of the appeal in the Crown Court, the respondent adduced evidence to the effect which I have summarised. It appears that the advocate then representing Mr Croitoru made a submission of no case to answer, apparently on the basis that there was no or no sufficient evidence that the Motability scooter was intended for use on a road. That submission was rightly rejected.
Mr Croitoru neither gave nor called evidence. It was submitted on his behalf that he could not be convicted as he was taking the scooter from or to a place of maintenance and was therefore excluded from the ambit of the section 5 offence by section 20 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 ("the 1970 Act"). That section, which is headed "Use of Invalid Carriages on highways" provides as follows:
(a) "(1) In the case of a vehicle which is an invalid carriage complying with the prescribed requirements and which is being used in accordance with the prescribed conditions—
(a) no statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footways shall prohibit or restrict the use of that vehicle on a footway;
(b) if the vehicle is mechanically propelled, it shall be treated for the purposes of the Road Traffic Regulation Act and the Road Traffic Act 1988, except section 22A of that Act (causing danger to road users by interfering with motor vehicles etc), and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as not being a motor vehicle; and sections 1 to 4, 21, 34, 163, 170 and 181 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 shall not apply to it; and
(c) whether or not the vehicle is mechanically propelled, it shall be exempted from the requirements of section 83 of the said Act of 1988.
(2) In this section—
1. … 'Invalid carriage' means a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or not, constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person, being a person suffering from some physical defect or disability;
2. 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State for Transport…"
It was accepted by the Crown Court that the Motability scooter ridden by Mr Croitoru was an invalid carriage which complied with the prescribed requirements. No issue arises in that regard. As to whether the scooter was at the material time being used in accordance with the prescribed conditions, it is necessary to have regard to regulation 4 of The Use of Invalid Carriages Regulations 1988 which is in these terms:
(a) "The conditions in accordance with which an invalid carriage must be used, in order that the modifications of the statutory provisions mentioned in subsection (1) of section 20 of the 1970 Act shall have effect in the case of the invalid carriage (being modifications of certain statutory provisions which relate to the use of vehicles on footways and roads) shall be—
(a) in the case of Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 invalid carriages that the invalid carriage must be used—
(i) by a person falling within a class of persons for whose use it was constructed or adapted, being a person suffering from some physical defect or physical disability;
(b) (ii) by some other person for the purposes only of taking the invalid carriage to or bringing it away from any place where work of maintenance or repair is to be or has been carried out to the invalid carriage;
(c) (iii) by a manufacturer for the purposes only of testing or demonstrating the invalid carriage;
(d) (iv) by a person offering to sell the invalid carriage for the purpose only of demonstrating it; or
(e) (v) by a person giving practical training in the use of the invalid carriage for that purpose only."
It is common ground that the first, third, fourth and fifth of those conditions could not apply to Mr Croitoru. It was however argued on his behalf before the Crown Court that he came within the second condition. The findings and conclusions of the Crown Court are set out in the case stated, the material part of which reads as follows:
(a) "10… We decided that even if the vehicle which he was travelling in complied with the prescribed requirements and was being used in accordance with the prescribed conditions, section 5 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial