Gray v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, seizure of a vehicle for suspected uninsured driving requires three cumulative conditions: a uniformed constable must require production under section 165; the driver must fail to produce the prescribed evidence; and the constable must have reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is uninsured. The required evidence is the relevant certificate, produced physically or by electronic access or a legible printed copy where appropriate. The driver bears the burden. Information enabling police checks is not a substitute, and the police need not provide equipment or conduct those checks.

The appellant’s Lotus Elise was stopped by the police. He said that insurance on another vehicle covered him to drive the Lotus Elise and that another person owned it, but he produced neither a physical nor an electronic copy of the insurance certificate. Police checks indicated that the Lotus Elise was uninsured, and it was seized.

Later evidence established that the appellant was insured to drive the car because ownership had transferred, although he remained its registered keeper. A deputy district judge dismissed his damages claim for wrongful seizure, finding the seizure valid. Judge Baucher dismissed his appeal in the Central London County Court. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the statutory failure-to-produce condition was satisfied when the driver supplied information from which the police might have checked the insurance.

Appeal dismissed. Davis LJ held that the deputy district judge and Judge Baucher had applied the statutory provisions correctly. McFarlane LJ agreed.

1. Section 165A(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 imposed three cumulative conditions for lawful seizure: a uniformed constable must require production under section 165; the person must fail to produce the required evidence; and the constable must have reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle was being driven contrary to section 143. All three conditions were satisfied.
2. The second condition concerned production of the relevant insurance certificate. Under section 165(2B), electronic production required the driver to provide electronic access to a copy or produce a legible printed copy. Section 165(2D) imposed no obligation on the police to provide equipment. The statutory burden remained on the driver. Information about insurance, ownership or a policy on another vehicle did not constitute production of the certificate.
3. Pryor v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, [2011] EWCA Civ 749, was distinguishable. In that case the driver had actually produced the relevant certificate, together with the necessary authorisation. Here, no certificate was produced and the police never obtained electronic access to it.
4. The proposed purposive construction was rejected because it departed from clear statutory language. The fact that police practice might involve database checks did not displace the statutory requirements.
5. The court indicated that, had the police themselves obtained actual electronic access to the certificate on the driver’s behalf and with his consent, the failure-to-produce condition might not have been met. That was a hypothetical observation and did not alter the result. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2016] EWCA Civ 1360, the appeal was dismissed.
• Central London County Court — Judge Baucher dismissed the appeal on 9 October 2014.
• County Court — Following a small-claims trial, the deputy district judge dismissed the damages claim on 3 March 2014, finding the seizure valid.