Vehicle and Operator Services Agency v Greenfarms Ltd

An operator-licensing exemption for agricultural tractors applies only where the vehicle satisfies the statutory definition. A commercial tractor unit remains within the licensing regime where it was designed and constructed primarily for road use and is capable of exceeding 25 miles per hour under its own power. The party relying on the exemption must prove it on the balance of probabilities.

The same evidential approach applies to the agricultural-tractor category for driving-licence purposes. A court should not infer primary agricultural use without evidence. Prosecuting authorities should not ordinarily be ordered to pay costs after properly discharging their public duty, absent an unnecessary or improper act or omission.

Greenfarms Ltd was convicted by Leeds Magistrates’ Court of using a goods vehicle without an operator’s licence and permitting a person without the appropriate driving licence to drive it. The Crown Court at Leeds allowed Greenfarms’ appeals and ordered the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency to pay costs.

The Agency appealed by case stated. The vehicle was a commercial DAF tractor unit adapted to pull a converter dolly and tanker carrying fertiliser between farms. The central issues were whether it was an agricultural tractor within the relevant statutory definitions, whether the operator-licence exemption applied, whether the driver required an HGV licence, and whether the Crown Court had made a proper costs order.

1. Appeal allowed. The answers to questions 1 and 2 were no. The vehicle was not shown to be an agricultural tractor and the claimed exemption from operator licensing was not established.
2. The statutory exemption depended on the definition in paragraph 4(3) of Part IV of Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. The vehicle had the appearance and characteristics of an ordinary commercial tractor unit. It was designed and constructed for road use, was suitable for use as part of a commercial articulated vehicle, and was capable of exceeding 25 miles per hour. The evidence did not establish any relevant alteration to its engine, power, gearing, wheels or tyres, or establish its normal or primary use.
3. The burden lay on Greenfarms to prove the exemption on the balance of probabilities. The Crown Court’s conclusion that the vehicle was an agricultural tractor was unsupported by sufficient evidence and lacked adequate analysis of the evidence and statutory provisions.
4. The vehicle was also not an agricultural or forestry tractor for the purposes of the driving-licence provisions. There was no evidence that it was primarily used as a tractor for off-road agricultural work. The conviction for permitting Mr Kettlewell to drive without the required licence was therefore reinstated.
5. It was unnecessary to decide whether the tanker was a farm implement or article for the purposes of Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995, although the court expressed doubt whether hauling it about 50 miles on the A1 amounted to agricultural work on the farm.
6. The Crown Court’s costs order against the prosecution was set aside. The prosecution had properly discharged its public duty and had not committed any unnecessary or improper act or omission. The Magistrates’ Court costs order was reinstated, and Greenfarms was ordered to pay the costs in the Crown Court and in the Administrative Court, to be assessed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the Agency’s appeal by case stated against the Crown Court’s decision and reinstated the relevant convictions.
• Crown Court at Leeds: on 18 February 2005, HHJ MacGill sitting with magistrates allowed Greenfarms’ appeals against the convictions and ordered the Agency to pay costs.
• Leeds Magistrates’ Court: convicted Greenfarms of the operator-licensing and driving-licence offences.