Irving, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport

Domestic legislation must be interpreted, so far as possible, to achieve the result required by a European Community directive, even where the legislation predates the directive. That interpretative duty may permit words to be read into the legislation or an existing provision to be given a meaning departing from its ordinary meaning. The limit is reached where the proposed interpretation would conflict with a fundamental feature of the legislation. A directive prescribing minimum standards for driving licences was to be given its ordinary meaning. Its requirement of a normal binocular field of vision could not be qualified by reference to whether an individual driver would present an abnormal danger. The domestic licensing provisions could nevertheless be interpreted consistently with the directive.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against the dismissal by District Judge Bennett at Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court of his appeal against refusal of a Group 2 driving licence. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Secretary of State had to grant the licence unless the claimant had a relevant disability, including a disability likely to make driving dangerous to the public. The claimant had steroid-induced glaucoma and extensive field loss in his right eye. The District Judge found that he was not likely to endanger the public under domestic law, but did not have a normal binocular field of vision under Annex III, paragraph 6.3 to Directive 91/439/EEC. The central issue was whether domestic law had to be interpreted to preclude the licence.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge had reached the correct result, although the reasoning differed. The answer to the agreed question was yes.
2. Directive 91/439/EEC pursued both road-safety and harmonisation objectives. The phrase “normal binocular field of vision” bore its ordinary natural meaning. The claimant’s individual safety, the hardship caused by the rule and proposals of the Eyesight Working Group did not justify altering that meaning.
3. Articles 10 and 249 of the Treaty establishing the European Community required domestic courts to interpret national legislation, whether enacted before or after a directive, so far as possible in the light of the directive’s wording and purpose. The principle stated in Marleasing SA v La Commercial Internacional de Alimentation SA [1990] 1 ECR 4135 applied.
4. The interpretative obligation was limited by the fundamental features of the domestic legislation. Applying the approach in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] 2 AC 557, an interpretation was possible where it retained the legislation’s road-safety purpose, even though it imposed the more rigorous standard required by the directive.
5. Section 92(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 could be interpreted so that failure to satisfy the directive’s standards constituted a disability likely to make driving dangerous to the public. The licence was therefore properly refused. No order for costs was made.

• Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Bennett dismissed the claimant’s appeal against refusal of a Group 2 driving licence on 6 December 2006.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The High Court answered the agreed central question in the affirmative.