Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions

For the purposes of section 85(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the question is whether, by the point of enforcement, the driver received adequate guidance of the applicable speed limit from signs on the relevant part of the road, assessed by reference to the route taken.

Strict compliance with every requirement of the traffic-sign regulations is not invariably necessary. The court may consider the extent to which signs comply and whether, taken together, they fulfilled the statutory purpose. A defect which does not prevent adequate guidance will not necessarily bar conviction. A prosecution is not an abuse merely because the prosecuting authority had adopted a later policy of stopping enforcement in similar circumstances, particularly where the underlying legal issue requires determination by the courts.

The appellant was convicted at Llandudno Magistrates’ Court of driving at 98 mph on a special road contrary to the Special Road (Llanddulas to Colwyn Bay) Regulations 1984 and section 17 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. His appeal to the Crown Court at Caernarfon was dismissed.

The terminal signs marking the beginning of the 50 mph limit were not internally illuminated, contrary to the relevant traffic-sign regulations. Seven compliant repeater signs were visible before the point of enforcement. After the offence, the police stopped enforcement at that location until the signs were repaired.

The central issues were whether the prosecution was an abuse of process and whether section 85(4) prevented conviction because of the defective illumination.

1. Appeal dismissed. The later instruction to stop enforcement did not create an abuse of process. Even assuming that it constituted a clear and settled policy applicable to the circumstances, the policy was based on an interpretation of the legislation which required determination by the courts. It would not have been unfair or oppressive to prosecute; indeed, allowing the courts to determine the legal issue served the administration of justice.
2. Section 85(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 must be read with sections 64, 85(1) and 85(2), the speed-limit provisions in section 17, and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. The relevant road is the part of the road leading to the point of enforcement, identified by the route taken, rather than the whole special road or trunk road.
3. The operative inquiry is whether, by the point of enforcement, the driver had been given adequate guidance of the speed limit by signs on the relevant part of the road, considered to the extent that they complied with the 2002 Regulations. The statutory scheme does not require the court to disregard all other signs whenever one sign has a defect, although the Secretary of State determines the required standard and local authorities must not substitute their own signage policy.
4. The purposive approach to mandatory statutory requirements requires consideration of the importance of the provision, the statutory purpose, individual protection from conviction, road-user safety, and any prejudice caused by the departure. The protection in section 85(4) strongly favours strict compliance, but the competing public interest in effective speed-limit enforcement must also be considered.
5. Here, the visible terminal signs, together with the seven compliant repeater signs, provided adequate guidance of the 50 mph limit. The failure of internal illumination therefore did not trigger the protection from conviction in section 85(4).

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal by way of case stated from the dismissal by the Crown Court at Caernarfon of the appellant’s appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Caernarfon: Appeal against conviction dismissed.
• Llandudno Magistrates’ Court: The appellant was convicted on 21 December 2009.