Richmond v Express Ltd. (t/a Express Dairies Distribution)

Where a permit requires a heavy goods vehicle to take the shortest practicable route and minimise restricted-road use, practicable refers to physical practicability. The court must not balance pollution, noise or congestion caused by a short passage on restricted roads against the environmental effects of a longer diversion. That policy choice belongs to the legislature. A truly minimal breach may be relevant to conviction or penalty, but it does not permit the fact-finder to apply a general proportionality assessment to the route requirement.

This was a prosecutor’s appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the Justices at Feltham. The respondents were a driver and his employer. The driver had used a heavy goods vehicle exceeding 18 tonnes on a restricted street during prescribed hours under the Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985.

A permit existed, but the prosecuting authority alleged breach of condition 5, which required the vehicle to minimise restricted-road use and take the shortest practicable route between planned stopping places. The Justices dismissed the informations, reasoning that alternative routes would cause additional pollution, noise and congestion. The central issue was whether that evaluative comparison was legally open to them.

1. Appeal allowed. The question stated was answered in the affirmative. The matter was remitted to the Justices with a direction to convict.
2. Condition 5 required the respondents to use the route involving the shortest journey on restricted roads that was practicable. In context, practicable meant physically practicable. The inquiry concerned the physical suitability of the route and the distance travelled on restricted roads.
3. The Justices erred by comparing pollution, noise and congestion arising from a two-mile passage on restricted roads with those arising from substantially longer alternative journeys. That was a policy judgment which the Order required the legislature, rather than the Justices, to make. The restriction applied even though compliance might require a longer journey on other London roads.
4. The court considered the reasoning in Post Office v London Borough of Richmond (CO/1278/93) and TNT Express (United Kingdom) Limited v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (CO/1537/95). The latter decision explained that practicability qualified the shortest route by reference to physical attributes. The court adopted that approach.
5. Lord Justice Scott Baker agreed with Mr Justice Pitchford’s judgment. The court also ordered the defendant company to pay the claimant’s costs in the sum of £2,609, concluding that the defence advocate had a duty, as did the prosecutor, to draw the relevant law to the Justices’ attention.

Feltham Justices: dismissed the informations against the driver and his employer, holding that the route taken was the shortest practicable route and complied with permit condition 5.

High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the prosecutor’s appeal by case stated and remitted the matter to the Justices with a direction to convict.