May v Director of Public Prosecutions

Whether a place is a public place for careless-driving legislation is a fact-sensitive question. The court must assess the particular location against the authorities, rather than apply a rigid formula. A place may remain public where access is generally available during opening hours, there is no selective admission process, and users need not show a personal reason for entry. The fact that a car park is intended for customers of a commercial business does not, by itself, make them a special class or deprive the place of its public character.

The appellant appealed by way of case stated against the Snaresbrook Crown Court’s dismissal of her appeal from a conviction for careless driving. The driving occurred in an enclosed inner car park at a Volvo franchise garage. The car park was used by customers and potential customers for sales, servicing, parts and repairs, and was accessible from the main road during opening hours. The central issue was whether it was a public place within section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Crown Court was entitled to conclude that the garage car park was a public place within section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The question in the case stated was answered in the affirmative.
2. The prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the driving occurred in a public place.
3. The authorities provide guidance, but the issue is not generally a hard-edged question of law. The court must examine the particular facts against that guidance.
4. The relevant circumstances included unrestricted access by members of the public during opening hours, no selective admission process, and no requirement that an entrant demonstrate a particular reason for attending. The car park adjoined a public road. Its intended use by customers did not convert those persons into a special class of the public.
5. The case was materially different from R v Spence [1999] RTR 353, concerning premises for which there was no evidence of any reason why a member of the general public would attend, apart from persons with pre-ordained specific business.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and answered the specified question in the affirmative.
• Snaresbrook Crown Court: on 9 September 2004, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction.
• Redbridge Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant of careless driving on 14 May 2004.