References: 1932 JC 13
Coram: Lord Justice-General (Clyde), Lord Sands
Ratio: The court considered the characteristics which would make ‘any other road to which the public has access’ a road for road traffic legislation.
Lord Clyde said: ‘There must be, as matter of fact, walking or driving by the public on the road, and such walking or driving must be lawfully performed – that is to say, must be permitted or allowed, either expressly or implicitly, by the person or persons to whom the road belongs.’
and ‘I think that, when the statute speaks of ‘the public’ in this connection, what is meant is the public generally, and not the special class of members of the public who have occasion for business or social purposes to go the farmhouse or to any part of the farm itself; were it otherwise, the definition might just as well have included all private roads as well as all public highways.
I think also that, when the statute speaks of the public having ‘access’ to the road, what is meant is neither (at one extreme) that the public has a positive right of its own to access, nor (at the other extreme) that there exists no physical obstruction, of greater or less impenetrability, against physical access by the public; but that the public actually and legally and legally enjoys access to it. It is, I think, a certain state of use or possession that is pointed to. There must be, as matter of fact, walking or driving by the public on the road, and such walking or driving must be lawfully performed — that is to say, must be permitted or allowed, either expressly or impliedly, by the person or persons to whom the road belongs.’ Lord Sands: ‘Any road may be regarded as a road to which the public have access upon which members of the public are to be found who have not obtained access either by overcoming a physical obstruction or in defiance of prohibition express or implied.’
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Clarke v Kato and Others; Cutter v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd HL (Times 23-Oct-98, Gazette 25-Nov-98, Gazette 11-Nov-98, House of Lords, Bailii, [1998] UKHL 36, [1998] 4 All ER 417, [1998] WLR 1647)
Save exceptionally, a car park is not a road for the purposes of road traffic legislation on obligatory insurance. It is an unjustified strain on the language. A distinction made between the road ways and the parking bays was artificial and . . - Cited – May v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1280 (Admin))
Whether the car park where the driving took place was a ‘public place’ within the meaning of section 3.
Held: The appeal failed.
Laws LJ set out the following propositions as accurately summarising the relevant legal principles:
a. . . - Cited – Harriot v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 965 (Admin))
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction under the 1988 Act of possessing a bladed article in a public place. He had been found in the forecourt of a hostel by the police seeking to re-enter after being excluded. He said that it . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 17 May 2019
Ref: 194254
The post Harrison v Hill: 1932 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.