Lewis, R (on the application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions

A car park attached to a public house may be a public place for the purposes of section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, even where access is limited to customers. During licensing hours, the court may infer that the public uses the car park from evidence that it is a public-house car park. The prosecution need not produce direct evidence identifying actual users. Magistrates may use common sense and draw safe inferences from proved primary facts. Where the primary facts establish that a public-house car park was available to members of the public during licensing hours, the conclusion that it was a public place may be compelled.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by the Hillingdon justices for driving with excess alcohol in a public place, contrary to section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He had been driving in the car park of the Black Bull public house during licensing hours. The magistrates found that the car park was a public place and convicted him.

The question for the Administrative Court was whether the magistrates had been entitled to reach that conclusion without positive evidence that members of the general public had actually used the car park.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The magistrates had reached the correct conclusion that the Black Bull public-house car park was a public place.

2. The expression “public place” is not defined in the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 192 defines “road” by reference to a highway or other road to which the public has access, while section 5 applies to driving on a road or other public place.

3. The authorities, including Elkins v Cartlidge, [1947] 1 All ER 829, Pugh v Knipe, [1972] RTR 286, and Sandy v Martin, [1974] RTR 236, establish that a public-house car park may be a public place during the hours when the public house is open. The restriction of use to patrons does not prevent that result.

4. It was unnecessary for the prosecution to adduce direct evidence of actual users. Magistrates may infer public use from the primary evidence that the place was a car park attached to a public house and that the defendant was there during licensing hours. The observation in R v Colin Michael Spence that there must be evidence that the public utilises the access could include evidence from which public use may properly be inferred, particularly since that case concerned a different type of car park.

5. On the findings made, the magistrates were entitled, and effectively bound, to find that the car park was a public place. Costs were awarded to the respondent in the sum of £750, payable within three months.

1. Hillingdon Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant on 10 July 2003 of driving with excess alcohol in a public place.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and upheld the magistrates’ conclusion. Costs of £750 were ordered.