Alun Griffiths (Contractors) Ltd v Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

For the purposes of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, whether a road includes an adjoining grass verge is a question of fact. The court must consider the relationship between the verge and the highway as a whole, including whether the verge is maintained by the highway authority. It is not necessary to decide whether the verge, viewed in isolation, is itself a thoroughfare or way of communication. A safety barrier erected for road-safety purposes does not necessarily mark the limit of the road. A finding by magistrates that a vehicle was kept on a public road will stand where it was legally open to them to reach that conclusion on the evidence.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated from its conviction by Abertillery Magistrates' Court on 30 April 2009. The conviction concerned keeping an unlicensed mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road, contrary to section 29(1) and (3) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.

The dumper truck was parked on a grass verge behind a crash barrier beside Cwmbran Drive. The magistrates found that the verge formed part of the road and was maintained by the highway authority. The issue was whether they were entitled in law to reach that conclusion.

1. Appeal dismissed. The question stated for the court was answered in the affirmative. The magistrates were entitled to convict.
2. Section 62 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 defines a public road in England and Wales as a road repairable at the public expense. The relevant question was whether Cwmbran Drive included the grass verge, rather than whether the particular area, considered in isolation, was itself a thoroughfare or way of communication.
3. Whether a road includes an adjoining verge is a question of fact for the tribunal of fact. The magistrates were entitled to rely on the finding that the verge was maintained by the highway authority as part of the public highway.
4. The crash barrier did not determine the extent of the road. On the evidence, it was erected for safety reasons and did not extend along the whole highway. The existence of the barrier therefore did not prevent the verge from forming part of Cwmbran Drive.
5. The authorities relied on by the claimant were not strictly in point. It was unnecessary for the magistrates to rely on any presumption arising from fencing. The court nevertheless concluded that, on the particular facts, Cwmbran Drive included the verge where the vehicle was parked.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On an appeal by way of case stated, the court dismissed the appeal and answered the stated question in the affirmative.
• Abertillery Magistrates' Court: On 30 April 2009, convicted the claimant of keeping an unlicensed mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road.