References: [2008] EWHC 447 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Maurice Kay LJ, Walker J
Ratio: 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 or insurance.
Held: If the case was remitted, and the magistrates properly directed they would be impelled to find the scooter to be a vehicle within section 185.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 185
This case cites:
- 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)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Coates, Regina v Misc (Bailii, [2011] EW Misc 3 (MC))
(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 . . - Cited – Coates v Crown Prosecution Service Admn (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2032 (Admin))
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for driving a Segway scooter on a footpath. He denied that it was ‘a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads.’
Held: The appeal failed. The district judge . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 25 July 2017
Ref: 266224
The post Director of Public Prosecutions v King: Admn 13 Feb 2008 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.