Driver And Vehicle Standards Agency v Rowe

A vehicle may qualify as a showman’s goods vehicle where its body or superstructure has been substantially and permanently customised to form part of the equipment of a show. The relevant adaptation need not be apparent from outside the vehicle. Internal alterations may suffice, provided the statutory requirements are met. The exemption is construed by reference to the ordinary meaning of the statutory language, its purpose and the need to avoid doubtful penalisation. Exemption from operator-licensing requirements does not automatically establish exemption from tachograph requirements. The latter exemption arises under a distinct EU regime and must be construed on its own wording, although the regimes should be read consistently where that is legally possible.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency appealed by way of case stated from the acquittal of Mark Rowe at Exeter Magistrates’ Court on charges of using a goods vehicle without an operator’s licence and without tachograph equipment. Mr Rowe operated a mobile catering business and drove a 7.5-ton lorry towing a catering kiosk. The lorry contained a substantial generator permanently fixed to its floor and walls.

The magistrates held that the vehicle was a showman’s goods vehicle under section 62 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, and that the relevant tachograph exemption also applied. The central issues were whether an internal alteration could constitute a special type of body or superstructure, and whether the operator-licensing exemption necessarily carried through to the tachograph regime.

1. Operator’s licence exemption. The appeal was dismissed in substance and the acquittal on the operator-licensing charge stood. The statutory definition required the vehicle to be a goods vehicle, to be used by a travelling showman, to be permanently fitted with a special type of body or superstructure, and for that body or superstructure to form part of the equipment of the show.
2. The words “body or superstructure” had an inclusive scope. They covered matters above the chassis and did not require the entire body or superstructure to have been specially constructed. Customisation of an existing body or superstructure could suffice.
3. The statute imposed no exterior-visibility requirement. An internal alteration could qualify where it materially customised the vehicle and formed part of the show’s equipment. A substantial generator permanently fixed to the body of the lorry could therefore constitute a special body forming part of the equipment of the show. This conclusion was supported by the statutory purpose and by the principle against doubtful penalisation.
4. The reasoning in Cleansing Service Group Ltd v Vehicle and Operator Services Agency [2006] EWHC 662 (Admin) supported giving the exemption its ordinary and natural meaning. The approach in Vehicle and Operator Services Agency v Kayes [2012] EWHC 1498 (Admin) was followed to the extent that catering equipment could form part of the equipment of a show.
5. The operator-licensing exemption did not automatically determine the tachograph issue. Article 13(j) of EC Regulation 561/2006 had a different wording and statutory origin. The court therefore declined to treat the two exemptions as necessarily co-extensive. On the limited material available, however, the judge stated that, if required to decide the tachograph issue, she would have been just persuaded that the exemption applied, principally because doubtful penalisation favoured the wider construction.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by case stated from the decision of Deputy District Judge Kevin Gray at Exeter Magistrates’ Court on 19 May 2016. The magistrates had acquitted the defendant of the operator-licensing and tachograph charges.
• Exeter Magistrates’ Court: acquittals upheld in substance; the High Court gave guidance on the construction of the exemptions.