References: [2011] EW Misc 3 (MC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Michael Rosenberg District Judge
Ratio: (Barnsley Magistrates Court) The defendant owned a Segway, a two wheeled vehicle. He was charged with having driven it on a public footpath despite its being a motor vehicle. He denied that it was a motor vehicle ‘adapted or intended for use on the road’.
Held: ‘If I am satisfied from all the evidence presented, that a reasonable person was to say ‘yes, the Segway might well be used on a road’, then, applying the test, the vehicle is intended or adapted for such use.
In my judgement, the conclusion must be that general use on the roads is to be contemplated.’
Statutes: Highways Act 1835, Road Traffic Act 1988 185(1), Road Traffic Regulation Act 1988 136(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v King Admn (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 447 (Admin))
The defendant was charged after driving a ‘City Mantis Electric Scooter’. He was disqualified from driving. The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of the charges on the basis that the scooter was not of such a description as to require a licence . . - Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Saddington; Chief Constable of the North Yorkshire Police v Michael Saddington Admn (Times 01-Nov-00, Bailii, [2000] EWHC Admin 409, [2001] RTR 227)
A motorised scooter of the type known as a ‘Go-Ped’ was a motor vehicle within the Act. Accordingly a driving licence and third party insurance were both required for its use on a public highway. The scooter required the passenger to stand on a . . - Cited – Burns v Currell ([1963] 2 All ER 297, [1963] 2 QB 433)
The defendant was accused of offences related to the driving on a public road a mechanically propelled vehicle, a Go-Kart.
Held: In fact it was not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. The Court set out the test to be applied in . . - Cited – Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Fleming QBD ([1987] 1 All ER 318, [1987] RTR 378)
The defendant was stopped pushing a motor-cycle along the road. It had been adapted for scrambling, and the registration plates lights and speedometer had been removed. He argued that it was no longer a motor vehicle ‘adapted or intended for use on . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 13 November 2019
Ref: 430057 br>
The post Coates, Regina v: Misc 18 Jan 2011 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.