Director of Public Prosecutions v Cove

Special reasons for avoiding or reducing mandatory disqualification for driving with excess alcohol are exceptional. Shortness of distance is not determinative. The court must assess all the circumstances, including how the vehicle was driven, the road and traffic conditions prospectively, the possibility of danger to other road users, the reason for driving and whether further driving was intended. The possibility of danger by contact with other road users is particularly important. A finding based on the actual absence of other road users, rather than the prospective conditions, is a misdirection. Driving a substantial distance at night, without lights, after significant alcohol consumption, merely to avoid a parking charge, could not constitute special reasons.

The respondent pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to driving with excess alcohol. She invited the magistrates to find special reasons under section 34(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and avoid the mandatory disqualification. The magistrates accepted that the distance driven was short and that there was no intention to drive further, and treated the absence of traffic and pedestrians as significant.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated. The central issues were whether the magistrates had correctly applied the authorities on short-distance driving and whether the circumstances could amount to special reasons.

1. The appeal was allowed. The matter was remitted to the magistrates for imposition of the disqualification.
2. Section 34(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 creates mandatory disqualification for the offence, subject only to the court finding special reasons for a shorter period or no disqualification.
3. The approach in Chatters v Burke [1986] 1 WLR 1321 requires consideration of seven matters: the distance driven; the manner of driving; the state of the vehicle; whether further driving was intended; the prevailing road and traffic conditions; the possibility of danger through contact with other road users; and the reason for driving. The distance driven is not sufficient by itself, and the possibility of danger is especially important.
4. The circumstances must be considered as a whole. A court must assess the prospective presence of other road users and pedestrians, rather than focus only on the traffic actually encountered. The approach in Director of Public Prosecutions v Bristow [1998] RTR 100 and R (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Oram [2005] EWHC 964 (Admin) confirms that no fixed distance provides a threshold and that the most compelling cases are generally unexpected emergencies.
5. The magistrates misdirected themselves by considering actual rather than prospective road usage. Their decision also gave insufficient weight to the manner of driving, the absence of lights, the significant alcohol reading and the non-emergency reason for driving. The conclusion that special reasons existed was one which no reasonable bench could reach.
6. The magistrates’ later explanation confirmed, but was not needed to establish, the errors. The respondent was ordered to pay £400 towards the prosecution’s costs, not to be enforced without leave of the court.

High Court (Administrative Court): the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated from the magistrates’ finding that special reasons existed. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the magistrates for imposition of the disqualification.