Director of Public Prosecutions v Butler

Where a terminal speed-limit sign is erected on a principal road within 50 metres of an electrically lit street lamp, the applicable traffic-sign regulations may require continuous illumination or reflective illumination. The prosecution must prove that the signage complied with those requirements at the time of the alleged offence. Evidence that signage complied with general requirements at an earlier date, without addressing illumination or the condition of the signs on the relevant date, may be insufficient. The statutory deeming provision concerning failure to comply with a traffic sign does not apply to a charge of exceeding a speed limit.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated against the dismissal by justices sitting in South Lakeland of a speeding charge. The respondent had been recorded travelling at 46 miles per hour in a 40 miles per hour limit on the A591 at Ings.

The justices were not satisfied that the terminal signs complied with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994, because they were not illuminated and appeared to be within 50 metres of a lit street lamp. The appeal concerned whether the illumination requirement applied and whether the prosecution evidence proved compliance on the date of the offence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The justices were entitled to conclude that the illumination requirement in schedule 17, item 10 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 applied to the terminal signs. The signs therefore had to satisfy the specified illumination requirements.
2. Sections 64, 85 and 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 required the prosecution to establish that the speed restriction was properly indicated. The requirement was concerned with the condition and illumination of the signs at the time of the alleged offence.
3. The prosecution evidence did not establish that point. The witness had visited the site nine months earlier, his photographs were taken in daylight, and his statement did not address illumination. His reference to consultation with the highways department did not identify when the consultation occurred or address the specific requirement for signs within 50 metres of an electrically lit street lamp.
4. The respondent gave clear evidence that the signs were neither lit nor reflective. It was open to the justices to find that the prosecution had failed to prove compliance with the relevant regulations.
5. The deeming provision in section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 concerned failure to comply with directions given by a traffic sign. It had no relevance to a charge of exceeding the speed limit.
6. The alleged procedural irregularity, arising from the justices being referred to the relevant regulation after retiring, afforded no basis for relief. In any event, the appeal was not a judicial review and the court had no jurisdiction to quash the justices’ decision on that ground.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The court upheld the justices’ dismissal of the speeding charge.