Croitoru v The Crown Prosecution Service

A mechanically propelled invalid carriage complying with the prescribed requirements and conditions is treated as not being a motor vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988, except for the specific statutory exception identified in section 20 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The exclusion therefore applies to the offence of driving with excess alcohol under section 5. The accused must at least provide evidence capable of bringing the use within the statutory exception. Where the accused’s own account shows use outside the prescribed conditions, the exclusion is unavailable. An error in the lower court’s statutory interpretation does not justify quashing a conviction where the accused was rightly convicted on the undisputed evidence.

Mr Croitoru was convicted by the Magistrates’ Court of driving with excess alcohol under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 while using a Motability scooter on a road. The Crown Court dismissed his appeal, holding that section 20 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 did not exclude the section 5 offence, but it did not decide whether the scooter was being used in accordance with regulation 4 of the Use of Invalid Carriages Regulations 1988.

On appeal by way of case stated, both parties accepted that the Crown Court’s construction was wrong. The central issues were whether a compliant invalid carriage was excluded from the definition of motor vehicle for section 5 purposes and, if so, whether the evidence brought the appellant within the prescribed maintenance or repair condition.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The certified question was answered No, but the conviction was upheld.
2. Section 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 expressly made the definition of motor vehicle subject to section 20 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Section 20(1)(b) stated in clear and general terms that a mechanically propelled invalid carriage complying with the prescribed requirements and conditions was to be treated, for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as not being a motor vehicle.
3. The only specific exception in section 20(1)(b) concerned section 22A of the 1988 Act. The separate reference to provisions applying to mechanically propelled vehicles confirmed that the general exclusion was not confined to the provisions expressly listed. The Crown Court’s interpretation would also produce the anomalous result that section 4 could not apply but section 5 could.
4. Accordingly, a compliant invalid carriage used in accordance with the prescribed conditions was outside the section 5 offence. Regulation 4(a)(ii) required use by another person solely to take the invalid carriage to, or bring it away from, a place where maintenance or repair had been or was to be carried out.
5. Section 20 created an exception in favour of the person accused. There was at least an evidential burden on the accused to show that the use could fall within it. Mr Croitoru’s evidence that he had fitted a battery and taken the scooter out to see how far it would go could not amount to taking it to or bringing it away from a place of maintenance or repair.
6. The Crown Court’s legal error caused no prejudice. On the only finding properly open on the evidence, the statutory conditions were not satisfied, so the conviction was rightly maintained.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The certified question was answered in the negative, but the conviction was upheld.
2. Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent: On 13 March 2015, the Crown Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and held that section 5 applied notwithstanding section 20.
3. Magistrates’ Court: Convicted the appellant of driving with excess alcohol.