Watts v Driver And Vehicle Standards Agency

Driving-licence holders have no immutable right to continue driving on the terms applicable when their licences were issued. Parliament or delegated legislation may alter those terms where authorised by law.

A recital to an EU directive cannot confer individual rights which override the directive’s express provisions. Existing licence holders were exempt from initial qualification requirements but remained subject to periodic training requirements. Regulations imposing that requirement were therefore valid, proportionate and enforceable.

The appellant was a professional minibus driver holding a category D1 licence. He had not completed the periodic training required by the Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) Regulations 2007 and was convicted of driving without the required periodic CPC.

The magistrates’ conviction was upheld by the Bolton Crown Court. On a case stated, the appellant argued that the regulations were invalid because they breached Magna Carta, recital (11) of Directive 2003/59/EC, and accrued or property rights protected by article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction under the amended summons was rightly imposed.
2. A driving licence authorises driving in accordance with the law as it stands from time to time. It is not an immutable and inalienable right protected against lawful changes to the conditions of driving. Magna Carta protects against arbitrary deprivation without lawful authority; it does not prevent lawful alteration of the conditions attached to a driving licence.
3. Recital (11) of Directive 2003/59/EC did not exempt existing licence holders from periodic training indefinitely. It protected acquired rights only up to the date specified for obtaining the relevant CPC. A recital could not confer rights overriding articles 7 and 8 of the Directive, which imposed periodic training requirements on drivers in the relevant categories.
4. The Secretary of State was entitled, and required, to transpose the Directive through the Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) Regulations 2007. Regulation 9 validly required existing category D1 licence holders to obtain a periodic CPC by 10 September 2013 and thereafter within five-year periods.
5. The interference with any property or accrued licence rights under article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights was proportionate and lawful. Existing licence holders were given at least five years to comply, and in practice a longer period because the domestic provisions entered into force on 27 March 2007.
6. The answer to the question stated by the Crown Court was “No”: the regulations, particularly regulation 9, were not ultra vires. Lord Justice Hickinbottom agreed with Mr Justice Kerr.

• High Court (Administrative Court): on 27 April 2017, the appeal by case stated was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
• Bolton Crown Court: on 2 June 2016, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
• Bury Magistrates’ Court: on 4 September 2015, the appellant was convicted after the summons was amended to allege driving without the required periodic CPC.