9 November 2005
In a case stated brought by Tuckers Solicitors, the prosecution sought to challenge the justices determination that special reasons existed. That challenge was successfully opposed.
ASHTON v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (2005)
DC (Maurice Kay LJ, Penry-Davey J) 9/11/2005
CRIMINAL LAW - ROAD TRAFFIC - TRANSPORT
CONSTRUCTION AND USE : EMERGENCY VEHICLES : MOTOR VEHICLES : ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES : SPEEDING : DEFINITION OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE : AMBULANCES : AMBULANCE DRIVERS : PRIVATE VEHICLES : s.42 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 : s.81 ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 : s.89 ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984
In the circumstances of the case a magistrates' court was entitled to find that a private motor vehicle being driven by an ambulance driver to collect an ambulance was not an emergency vehicle within the meaning of the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 reg.3 as it did not fall within the statutory definition.
The appellant (X) appealed by way of case stated against a decision of a magistrates' court to convict him of a number of road traffic offences. X had been employed as an ambulance driver by a third party that provided emergency ambulance coverage to a number of hospitals. X had used his own private motor vehicle to respond to a duty call to collect an ambulance and use it to take an ill child to hospital. During his journey to collect the ambulance X employed a flashing blue light and drove in excess of the relevant speed limits. X was subsequently charged in the magistrates' court with offences under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 reg.16, the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.42 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s.81(1) and s.89(1). The magistrates' court convicted X and was of the opinion that X's vehicle was not an emergency vehicle, namely an ambulance, within the meaning of reg.3 of the 1989 Regulations as it was not constructed or adapted for the purposes of conveying sick, injured or disabled persons. X contended that in the circumstances of the case by analogy his private vehicle formed part of two vehicles which were to be used to transport a patient and could therefore be regarded as an ambulance.
HELD: The magistrates' court had approached the matter on the correct basis by seeking to ascertain whether X's vehicle came within the definition contained in the 1989 Regulations. On the facts before it the magistrates' court was entitled to conclude that X's vehicle was not an ambulance and to convict him of the offences with which he had been charged.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors: For the appellant: Tuckers (Birmingham) For the respondent: Crown Prosecution Service