Vehicle & Operator Services Agency, R (on the application of) v Kayes

Showman’s vehicle exemptions are construed by their ordinary meaning in the statutory and safety context. A vehicle may qualify as a showman’s goods vehicle where its body or superstructure is permanently fitted for road use and forms part of the registered showman’s equipment of the show. Refreshment kiosks can constitute such equipment because refreshment facilities are ordinarily expected at a show and may form part of its attraction. A specialised vehicle designed and constructed solely to transport those kiosks may also qualify for the tachograph exemption for vehicles transporting circus or funfair equipment. The separate exemption for vehicles specially constructed for engineering operations cannot properly be applied to such a vehicle merely because of an agreement with the licensing authority.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of justices sitting at Exeter Magistrates’ Court on 12 May 2011. The respondent had been acquitted of offences concerning operator licensing, vehicle testing, tachograph use and vehicle excise duty after being stopped while driving a three-axle goods vehicle and trailer carrying refreshment kiosks between fairs.

The central issues were whether the vehicle was a showman’s goods vehicle under Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, whether the kiosks were equipment of the show, whether the vehicle fell within the relevant testing exemption, and whether the driver qualified for the tachograph exemption for specialised vehicles transporting circus and funfair equipment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The justices’ reasons were inadequate, but their conclusion that the respondent was entitled to the relevant exemptions was correct.
2. Under section 62 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, “permanently fitted” referred to the condition of the vehicle when used on a road. The kiosks were permanently fitted for that purpose, notwithstanding that they were unloaded at the fair.
3. The words concerning equipment of the show referred to equipment belonging to the person in whose name the vehicle was registered, rather than requiring ownership of the show itself. Refreshment kiosks were capable, in their ordinary meaning and context, of being equipment of a show. The respondent used the vehicle solely to transport them to and from fairs, so the showman’s goods vehicle exemption applied.
4. The approach to statutory exemptions was that their ordinary and natural meaning had to be considered in the context of public safety. The exemptions were directed to vehicles transporting equipment needed for shows and fairs and were not to be extended beyond their proper scope.
5. The testing exemption in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Goods Vehicle Plating and Testing Regulations 1988, for vehicles specially designed for engineering operations, did not properly cover this vehicle. Any acceptance by the licensing authority based on an agreement with the Showman’s Guild did not alter the legal position. The court suggested that the matter should be placed on a proper legislative footing.
6. The vehicle was a specialised vehicle transporting funfair equipment. The respondent therefore qualified for the tachograph exemption under Article 13, paragraph J of the relevant Community regulation.
7. The court did not direct convictions even if the appeal had succeeded, because the respondent had acted in good faith. The respondent, a litigant in person, was awarded £80 for travel costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 18 May 2012, Collins J dismissed the appeal by way of case stated from the Exeter Magistrates’ Court decision of 12 May 2011.