Martin v Harrow Crown Court

To establish that a road is a restricted road subject to the statutory 30-mile-per-hour limit, the prosecution must prove the statutory street-lighting condition: lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart. A witness’s assumption or evidence that the lamps were probably within that distance is insufficient, particularly where the witness has not measured or otherwise verified the spacing. Where the defence puts the prosecution to strict proof, the prosecution must produce evidence capable of proving the statutory condition. If necessary, it should seek a short adjournment to obtain measurements or plans.

The claimant was convicted of driving at 61 miles per hour on Park View Road, alleged to be a restricted road. The magistrates convicted him, and the Harrow Crown Court dismissed his appeal and increased the penalty.

The Crown Court refused to state a case. The claimant sought judicial review of that refusal and permission to challenge the conviction directly, alleging among other matters that there was no evidence that the road was restricted. The central issue was whether the prosecution had proved the street-lighting condition required by section 82(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

1. Judicial review and disposition. The court held that the case-stated procedure served no useful purpose because all relevant issues could be determined in the judicial review proceedings. Permission was granted to amend the claim and to pursue the additional grounds. The application succeeded and the conviction was quashed.
2. Restricted road. Under sections 81(1) and 82(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the prosecution had to prove that Park View Road had a system of street lighting with lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart. The fact that the road was residential, or that a police officer believed it to be within a 30-mile-per-hour zone, did not establish that statutory requirement.
3. Evidence. The officer accepted that he had not measured the distance between the lamps and did not know what it was. His evidence that the lamps were likely to be within 200 yards was unsupported and insufficient. The claimant’s evidence that one pair was approximately 240 yards apart further undermined the prosecution case. The Crown Court had also materially misstated the evidence by referring to 200 feet rather than 200 yards and had failed to address relevant evidence.
4. Practical guidance. Where the defence puts the prosecution to strict proof, the prosecution must be able to prove the statutory condition. If it cannot, it should seek a short adjournment to obtain measurements or plans. Good practice requires the defence, where appropriate, to notify the prosecution in advance that strict proof will be required.
5. It was unnecessary to determine the remaining issues concerning the approval and operation of the speed-measuring device, alleged unfairness, or apparent bias. Costs were ordered out of central funds, with legal aid taxation.

• Brent Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant in his absence and imposed a fine, costs and penalty points.
• Harrow Crown Court: dismissed the appeal against conviction, increased the fine, imposed a driving disqualification and ordered costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the judicial review application and quashed the conviction.