Coombes v DPP

For a speeding conviction on a road without street lighting, the statutory defence applies unless the required signs adequately indicate the speed limit. It is not enough that signs exist in the prescribed positions. At the point where the motorist exceeded the limit, they must reasonably have conveyed the new limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time to reduce from the previous lawful speed. The driver’s actual knowledge of the limit does not remove the defence.

The claimant was convicted by Mendip Magistrates’ Court of speeding under sections 81(1) and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The Crown Court dismissed his appeal by a majority. The relevant road was subject to a 30 mph limit imposed by order, without a system of street lighting. Mandatory roadside signs were obscured by overgrown hedgerows until the point at which the claimant passed them, although road-surface roundels were visible.

On appeal by case stated, the Administrative Court considered whether the signs were adequately erected and maintained under section 85, whether one visible sign or the roundels sufficed, whether the signs indicated the limit in sufficient time, and whether the claimant’s local knowledge defeated the statutory defence.

1. Appeal allowed. The claimant could not be convicted under section 85(4) because the required signs did not convey the 30 mph limit in sufficient time.
2. Section 85(4) involved two requirements: there had to be signs of the kind required by section 85(1) or (2), and those signs had to indicate the relevant limit.
3. The second requirement meant that, at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the signs had reasonably to be expected to convey the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time to reduce from the previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit.
4. The claimant’s knowledge of the speed limit was irrelevant. The defence was not conditional on lack of knowledge, and the offence did not require a mental element. The court relied on Wawrzynczyk v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Constabulary (CO/4116/99, unreported, 28 February 2000).
5. The court left open whether one obscured roadside sign was sufficient, whether obscuration constituted failure to maintain, and whether the roundels independently sufficed.

• Crown Court: The claimant’s appeal from the magistrates’ conviction was dismissed by a majority of two to one on 21 April 2006.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal by case stated allowed.