Beckett, R (on the application of) v Aylesbury Crown Court

A constable in uniform may stop a motorist under Road Traffic Act 1988, section 163, or under the common law, without reasonable suspicion, provided the officer acts in good faith and does not act capriciously or engage in malpractice, oppression or opprobrious behaviour. A breath test may then be required where the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has been drinking. A case stated appeal cannot succeed by reopening factual findings which the lower court accepted on the evidence.

The claimant was convicted by magistrates of driving with excess alcohol. The Crown Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the conviction, finding that police officers had lawfully stopped him for a document and vehicle check and had thereafter reasonably suspected that he had consumed alcohol. The claimant challenged the stop, arguing that it was an unlawful random stop designed to circumvent the restrictions on random breath testing. He also challenged aspects of the case stated and the recorded evidence.

The issue was whether the stop and subsequent breath test were lawful and whether the Crown Court’s factual findings could properly support the conviction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction and the Crown Court’s order were upheld.
2. Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road to stop when required to do so by a constable in uniform. The power does not depend on the officer having prior grounds for suspicion.
3. The power is subject to limits. The officer must act in good faith and must not act capriciously or in bad faith, or engage in malpractice, oppression or opprobrious behaviour. This principle applied whether the power arose under section 163 or under the common law. The authorities, including Beard v Wood, [1980] RTR 455, and Chief Constable of Gwent v Dash, [1986] RTR 41, supported that conclusion.
4. Random stopping of vehicles is not, by itself, malpractice. It is distinct from requiring random breath tests. Once the officers had reasonable cause to suspect that the claimant had consumed alcohol, section 6 authorised the breath test.
5. The Crown Court accepted the officers’ evidence and found no lack of good faith, malpractice, oppression, caprice or opprobrious behaviour. Those findings brought the case within the governing principle. The claimant could not use the case stated appeal to reopen factual matters which the Crown Court had resolved against him.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed: [2004] EWHC 100 (Admin).
2. Aylesbury Crown Court — On 9 May 2003, the Crown Court dismissed the appeal against conviction, upheld the conviction and ordered costs.
3. Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court — On 9 April 2003, the claimant was convicted of driving with excess alcohol contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.