Carter-Brown & Ors v Crown Prosecution Service

On an appeal by way of case stated, the court must generally determine the issue within the factual findings recorded by the lower court. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the obstruction occurred on a highway. Where the lower court finds that the apparent boundary marker may be misplaced, and the evidence does not establish the true boundary, that burden is not discharged. Painting a line does not itself convert private land into a highway. A highway can arise only through the applicable statutory provisions or common-law principles of dedication. If obstruction on the highway is proved, blocking vehicles across the road and forcing pedestrians to divert is not de minimis, even where the length of road covered is very short.

The appellants were convicted at Reading Magistrates’ Court of wilfully obstructing free passage along a highway, contrary to section 137(1) of the Highways Act 1980. They had chained and glued themselves together and lain across The Mearings, an access road to the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The central dispute was whether the area on which they lay formed part of the highway, or instead remained private road. The District Judge found that a green line probably marked the boundary but also accepted that it might be misplaced by more than 1.3 metres. The appeal by case stated raised whether the prosecution had proved obstruction on a highway and, alternatively, whether any obstruction was de minimis.

1. Appeal allowed. The convictions were quashed because the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were lying on the highway.
2. An appeal by way of case stated proceeds within the factual findings recorded by the lower court, although analysis of the evidence may be necessary where the legal challenge depends upon those findings. The approach in DPP v Jobling [2016] EWHC 2707 (Admin) was followed.
3. The District Judge had found that the green line might be in the wrong place and that the discrepancy might exceed 1.3 metres. That finding could not be reconciled with certainty that the appellants were lying on the highway. Photographs did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that some part of each appellant’s body was on the highway.
4. The maps attached to the Atomic Weapons Establishment Burghfield Byelaws 2010 could not establish the precise boundary. Under section 32 of the Highways Act 1980, the weight given to a map is for the court, and the small scale of those maps made them materially less useful than the larger-scale map produced by the highways officer.
5. Land does not become a highway merely because a green line is painted on it. The essential characteristics of a highway must be established, through the Highways Act 1980 or common-law principles. The summary in Kotegaonakar v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2012] EWHC 1976 (Admin) was applied. There was no evidence that the land west of the green line had been dedicated as highway or otherwise acquired the characteristics of a highway.
6. As an alternative ground, if the appellants had been proved to be on the highway, the obstruction would not have been de minimis. Lying across the road blocked vehicles and required pedestrians to go around them. The second question was therefore answered affirmatively, but it was unnecessary to determine it for the disposal of the appeal.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): The appeals by case stated were allowed. The convictions entered by the Reading Magistrates’ Court were quashed.
• Reading Magistrates’ Court: The District Judge convicted the appellants of wilfully obstructing free passage along a highway contrary to section 137(1) of the Highways Act 1980.