Brooks v Blackpool Borough Council

Under regulation 24 of the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossing Regulations 1997, a vehicle that is stationary in a queue is not “proceeding in the same direction”. Regulation 24(1)(a) concerns overtaking a moving vehicle. Regulation 24(1)(b) concerns overtaking a stationary vehicle only where it has stopped for the purposes specified in regulations 23, 25 or 26. The distinction between moving and stationary vehicles is reinforced by the contrasting statutory language and ordinary meaning of “proceeding”.

This was an appeal by way of Case Stated from the Blackpool Magistrates’ Court. A taxi-driver had been convicted of overtaking vehicles in stationary traffic near a pedestrian crossing, contrary to regulation 24(1)(a) of the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossing Regulations 1997. The magistrates interpreted “proceeding in the same direction” as including stationary vehicles waiting in a queue. The central issue was whether that interpretation was correct.

Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.

1. Regulation 24(1)(a) prohibits a vehicle approaching a crossing within the controlled area from passing ahead of the foremost part of another motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

2. The word “proceeding” must be read in contrast with “stationary” in regulation 24(1)(b). A vehicle that is stationary and waiting for traffic to move is not proceeding, even though it remains on a journey and intends to travel in the same direction.

3. Regulation 24(1)(b) applies to a stationary vehicle that has stopped for the purposes of complying with regulations 23, 25 or 26. Those provisions concern stopping at pedestrian crossings or traffic signals, including giving precedence to pedestrians. The magistrates had found no evidence that the vehicles overtaken had stopped for any of those purposes.

4. The ordinary meaning of “proceeding”, the statutory contrast between the two subparagraphs, and the distinction drawn in the Highway Code and Wilkinson’s commentary all supported that construction.

5. The magistrates were wrong to include stationary queueing traffic within regulation 24(1)(a). The Case Stated question was answered “no”, and the conviction was quashed. The appellant was awarded costs, subject to deduction of £250 plus VAT for an aborted hearing.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal by way of Case Stated from the Blackpool Magistrates’ Court, answered the stated question in the negative and quashed the conviction.