Meekings v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police

Where a magistrates’ court must determine whether land is a road to which the public has access, the relevant issue is public access, not merely access restricted to a particular class of the public. Where the evidence necessary to establish the status and access arrangements of the land is absent, the stated question cannot be answered affirmatively. The appeal was conceded and the question was answered in the negative.

The claimant had been convicted by magistrates of driving with excess alcohol in her breath on a driveway serving three households. She maintained that the land was private and was not a road to which the public had access. The magistrates found that the driveway was a road for the purposes of the relevant legislation and stated a case. Before the Divisional Court, it became clear that there was no evidence concerning ownership of the disputed spur of land. The defendant consequently conceded the appeal.

1. Disposition. The defendant conceded the appeal after it became clear that evidence concerning ownership of the disputed spur of land was not before the court. The question stated by the magistrates was answered in the negative.
2. Public access. The issue raised by the stated case was whether the land was a road to which the public had access. Access limited to a class of the public would not, on the claimant’s case, satisfy that requirement. The court accepted the concession without making a wider determination because the necessary evidence was unavailable.
3. Costs. An order for costs from central funds was made in respect of both the Divisional Court proceedings and the lower court proceedings.

• Magistrates’ court: The claimant was convicted after the magistrates found that the driveway was a road for the purposes of the relevant legislation.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was conceded and the stated question was answered in the negative.