Blake Lapthorn Client Seeks Permission To Appeal From The Supreme Court

Online, June 16, 2010 (Newswire.com) - On 24 May 2007 Mr Peake was driving a car when the speed of the vehicle was checked by a mobile unit of the Hampshire Constabulary using a laser speed measuring device. The speed of Mr Peake's vehicle was recorded in excess of the 40 mph speed limit on the A27 Southampton Road, Titchfield, Fareham, Hampshire.

Hampshire Constabulary arranged for a summons to be issued, which was dealt with at trial by Mr District Judge Gillibrand sitting at Alton Magistrates' Court on 9 September 2008. Mr Peake's defence was that there were fundamental flaws in the signing of the 40 mph speed limit in the vicinity of the enforcement site. In particular, Mr Peake claimed that there was the absence of 40 mph paired terminal signing at three junctions leading to where the mobile speed camera was situated. At the conclusion of the trial District Judge Gillibrand ruled that Mr Peake must have passed three 40 mph repeater signs before his speed was checked by the mobile unit and that, accordingly, such repeater signing could provide adequate guidance of the 40 mph speed limit despite the absence of paired terminal signing at the three junctions. Mr Peake was sentenced to a fine of £50, his driving licence was endorsed with three penalty points and he was ordered to make a contribution to prosecution costs of £350 and to pay the victim surcharge of £15.

Mr Peake lodged an appeal to the High Court of Justice, which ruled against him in a judgment that was delivered on 19 February 2010. However, on the application of Mr Peake, the High Court of Justice by order dated 20 April 2010 certified the point of law involved in the case to be one of general public importance. The question of law is posed in the terms of where a defendant motorist is facing an allegation that he drove a motor vehicle on a road where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in Section 82(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is provided on the road, at a speed exceeding the limit of speed for that road, what is the nature and extent of the speed limit signing that the prosecution must prove was in place at the time of the alleged offence to avoid the operation of Section 85(4) of that Act?

Section 85(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 imposes on the courts a statutory prohibition of conviction where the road is not a restricted road by virtue of street lighting and where adequate guidance of the applicable speed limit is not given to drivers. A body of case law dating back as far as 1967 appeared to establish precedent that the statutory prohibition on conviction would operate if the speed limit was not signed in strict accordance with the Secretary of State's Traffic Signs and Regulations and General Directions. Accordingly, the case law appeared to establish that if required paired terminal signing and / or required regular repeater signing was not in place, the statutory prohibition on conviction would come into operation.

The High Court of Justice did not follow the previous case law and decided to apply a purposive approach to statutory interpretation. The High Court ruled that the purpose of Section 85 is to ensure that as far as possible motorists drive at safe speeds, that they are enabled to do so by adequate guidance and that they should only be penalised if such guidance is available on the road on which the limit is exceeded. As the section of road leading to the speed camera had three repeater signs in place this was deemed to be adequate guidance.

The ruling of the High Court of Justice in Mr Peake's case does not sit easily with a judgment of a differently constituted High Court of Justice thirteen days later where the High Court ruled that the absence of illuminated terminal signing on the route to the enforcement site triggered the application of the statutory prohibition on conviction, despite the existence of repeater signing of the 40 mph speed limit.

Mr Peake hopes that if he is granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court this will give it an opportunity to deliver a comprehensive ruling on circumstances in which the courts must apply the statutory prohibition on conviction enshrined in Section 85(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Contacts
Daniel Baber, PR Manager
Tel: 020 7814 5489 / 07771 930 084
Email: daniel.baber@bllaw.co.uk
www.bllaw.co.uk
Blake Lapthorn Driving Offences Team