Peake v Director of Public Prosecution

For a conviction for speeding, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 85(4) requires compliant signs to have provided adequate guidance on the route taken to the point of enforcement. It does not require every road within the area covered by a speed-limit order to have been perfectly signed.

Where the prosecution proves the route taken, it must show adequate compliant signage on that route. If the route is uncertain, it must show adequate signage on every route which the driver may have taken. The driver’s actual knowledge of the limit is irrelevant. Minor defects may be immaterial under the de minimis principle.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated from his conviction at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court for driving above a 40 mph limit on the A27. His speed and the operation of the recording equipment were undisputed.

The challenge concerned allegedly defective signs on side roads and elsewhere within the area covered by the speed-limit order. The District Judge found that the claimant had driven along a stretch of the A27 containing compliant signs, treated other defects as immaterial or de minimis, and upheld the conviction. The central issue was whether section 85(4) required compliant signage throughout the whole area covered by the order, or only adequate signage on the route leading to the point where the claimant’s speed was measured.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The conviction stood, and the questions posed by the District Judge were answered in the affirmative.
2. Section 85(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 prevents conviction unless the speed limit is indicated by the prescribed traffic signs. The signs must provide adequate guidance leading to the point of enforcement. The provision does not require every road within the area identified by a speed-limit order to be fully compliant.
3. Where the prosecution proves the route taken, it need show compliant signs which adequately informed a driver on that route of the limit at the point of enforcement. If the route cannot be proved, adequate compliant signage must be shown on all routes which the driver might have taken. The driver’s actual knowledge of the limit is irrelevant.
4. The court rejected the claimant’s wider “envelope” argument. The statutory reference to a “road” could not be expanded to cover all roads within an order area. The construction adopted was supported by the statutory purpose of securing adequate guidance and avoiding an immunity from conviction based on defects remote from the route used.
5. Mackereth v Madge and Smith v Rankin were not followed to the extent that they conflicted with this purposive construction. Coombes v DPP was consistent with the requirement that signs give sufficient opportunity to reduce speed. Minor defects could be disregarded under the de minimis principle applied in Cotterill v Chapman.
6. The term “envelope” was described as unhelpful unless used precisely. The decision did not relieve traffic authorities of their continuing duty to provide adequate, compliant signs throughout areas covered by speed-limit orders.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated from the decision of District Judge Gillibrand at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.