Humber v Director of Public Prosecutions

On a restricted road, the statutory 30 miles per hour limit arises from the combination of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, sections 81 and 82, where the prescribed system of street lighting exists. A failure by the traffic authority to comply with its duty to provide adequate speed-limit guidance under section 85 does not prevent conviction under section 81(1). Section 85(4) confirms that proper signage is required for roads without the prescribed street lighting, but not for restricted roads.

The appellant was convicted after pleading guilty to driving above 30 miles per hour on a stretch of road with street lighting meeting the statutory definition of a restricted road. She argued that the prosecution had to prove full compliance by the traffic authority with its duty to provide speed-limit signs under section 85(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The appeal by way of case stated concerned whether inadequate or misleading signage prevented criminal liability.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The answer to the case-stated question was no.
2. Sections 81 and 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 impose a 30 miles per hour limit by primary legislation on a restricted road. A road is restricted where, in England and Wales, it has a system of street lighting furnished by lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart.
3. The appellant’s road satisfied that definition, and she had driven above the statutory limit. Section 85 imposes duties on traffic authorities to erect and maintain signs giving adequate guidance, but its language does not qualify the statutory limit or make conviction dependent on compliance with that duty.
4. Section 85(4) reinforces that conclusion. It expressly requires proper signs before conviction where no prescribed system of street or carriageway lighting exists. That wording necessarily indicates that the same requirement does not apply on a restricted road.
5. The absence or inadequacy of signs could be relevant to sentence, but did not absolve the appellant from criminal liability. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, to be assessed if not agreed, subject to the costs judge deciding whether enforcement was appropriate.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated from the appellant’s conviction following a binding pre-trial ruling by the Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.