Director of Public Prosecutions v Alderton

Driving does not necessarily require actual forward or backward movement of a vehicle. The applicable inquiry is whether the defendant substantially controlled the vehicle’s movement and direction, and whether the conduct falls within the ordinary meaning of driving. A defendant may be driving where active use of the controls, including the handbrake, prevents movement while the wheels turn. The question is fact-sensitive. Wheel spinning on a public road may therefore constitute driving even where the vehicle remains stationary.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by case stated after Sussex Justices acquitted the respondent of driving with excess alcohol, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The respondent had sat in the driver’s seat, deliberately used the accelerator, clutch and steering wheel, and spun the wheels while the handbrake prevented the vehicle from moving. The justices found that the vehicle had remained in the same position and concluded that driving required some movement of the vehicle.

The question for the High Court was whether the admitted wheel spinning constituted driving.

1. The appeal was allowed. The justices had erred in law, and the case was remitted with a direction to convict.

2. R v MacDonagh established two relevant inquiries: whether the defendant was substantially controlling the movement and direction of the vehicle, and whether the activity fell within the ordinary meaning of driving.

3. Actual movement of the vehicle is not essential. The first inquiry concerns what the defendant was doing, including active intervention to prevent movement. The respondent used the clutch, accelerator and steering wheel while the handbrake prevented forward or backward movement. That amounted to sufficient control over the vehicle’s movement and direction.

4. The conduct also fell within the ordinary meaning of driving. The respondent was deliberately wheel spinning and seeking to ensure that the vehicle did not move forward while its wheels turned. The court rejected the proposed distinction between wheel spinning with no movement and wheel spinning involving slight movement.

5. The decision in Hoy v McFadyen supported the conclusion that movement is not essential where the driver’s activities have gone beyond preparation and involve active intervention to prevent movement. The purpose of the wheel spinning, including the respondent’s desire to vent anger, did not alter the legal character of the conduct.

6. The court noted the potential danger of wheel spinning on a public road, but based its decision on the ordinary meaning of driving rather than public policy alone. Each case remains dependent on its facts.

1. Sussex Justices: acquitted the respondent and dismissed the information after finding that stationary wheel spinning was not driving.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal by case stated, answered the legal question “yes”, and remitted the case with a direction to convict.