jones_dppAdmn11
References: [2011] EWHC 50 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Charles J, Wyn Williams J
Ratio: The driver appealed against his conviction for exceeding the relevant maximum speed on a Special Road, the A55 in North Wales. The speed limit signs were designed to be illuminated, but the lamps were not working. Instructions had been given not to enforce the limit until the signs were repaired. The police argued that it was not an abuse to pursue the prosecution.
Held: The appeal failed. The circumstances were not sufficient to satisfy an allegation of abuse of process. The argument pressed by the applicant would prevent a court testing the lawfulness of the instruction given. The terminal signs at each end of the limit area were in order. The mandatory provisions in the relevant regulations had been complied with. Though there were specifications that the signs should be either illuminated or reflective, these were not mandatory. The appellant’s argument would preclude the court taking a purposive approach to the Regulations.
Statutes: Special Road (Llanddulas to Colwyn Bay) Regulations 1984,
This case cites:
- Cited – Regina v Beckford CA (Times 27-Jan-95, [1996] 1 Cr App R 94)
Procedures are needed so that cars which have been involved in major accidents or crashes and criminal proceedings are envisaged should only be destroyed with consent. Neil LJ considered the law of abuse of process saying that: ‘the constitutional . . - Cited – Peake v Director of Public Prosecution Admn (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 286 (Admin))
If the signage indicating a speed limit was defective, the fact that the Appellant knew that the speed limit was 50 mph is not relevant. However, the essential question was where the limit must be indicated. Elias LJ said: ‘The effect of sub-section . . - Cited – In re Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd CA ([1991] Ch 166, [1990] BCC 765)
The court gave guidelines for the periods of disqualification to be applied for company directors under the Act. The maximum period of ten years should be reserved for only the most serious of cases. Periods of two to five years should apply to . . - Cited – Coombes v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Times 29-Dec-06, Bailii, [2006] EWHC 3263 (Admin))
The defendant appealed against his conviction for speeding. The speed camera was placed just after the 30mph limit was imposed, and the signs were obscured by foliage.
Held: There was no case law direct on the point. The appeal was allowed. It . . - Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Langridge CA ([1991] Ch 402)
The lower court had dismissed a petition for a director disqualification because of the failure to comply with the ten day requirement in section 16.
Held: (Majority) The provisions of section 16 were directory only and not mandatory. . . - Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Butler Admn (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 669 (Admin))
The Local Authority appealed against the rejection of an allegation of speeding, on the basis that that the speed limit sign, which was designed to be illuminated, was not in fact lit.
Held: The appeal failed. . . - Cited – Peake v Director of Public Prosecution Admn (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 286 (Admin))
If the signage indicating a speed limit was defective, the fact that the Appellant knew that the speed limit was 50 mph is not relevant. However, the essential question was where the limit must be indicated. Elias LJ said: ‘The effect of sub-section . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 09 November 2019
Ref: 428282
The post Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 27 Jan 2011 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.