Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE HOOPER
MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY
Between:
MEEKINGS
Claimant
v
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST MERCIA POLICE
Defendant
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms L Hancox (Instructed By Painters) Appeared On Behalf Of The Claimant
Mr S Phillips (Instructed By The Crown Prosecution Service) Appeared On Behalf Of The Defendant
J U D G M E N T
MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY: Mrs Susan Meekings answered, at the Kidderminster Magistrates' Court, an allegation that on 15 August 2009 with excess alcohol in her breath she had driven on a road. It was cited as "The Croft, Kidderminster". She always contended that that land upon which her tyres rested, no matter how it was named, was private. It was not a road to which the public had access, it was a drive used by her household and that of two other households positioned next to her and next but one. The Magistrates found the "driveway", as they called it, to which in error they referred as "The Croft" was, for the purposes of the relevant legislation, a road, and convicted her.
They stated a case, Mrs Meekings always having suggested that the burden on the respondent had not been discharged. It was required to show that there was access to the general public, not access restricted to a class of the public.
We have heard a certain amount of argument today and, as dialogue between Bench and Bar has developed, it has become plain that there could not be before this court evidence as to ownership of what we have called "a spur" and what the Magistrates erroneously referred to as "The Croft", a thin strip of land off a roadway which is named "The Croft". That being so, Mr Phillips, with an eye to the high standards of the Bar to which he has been trained, immediately stood up and conceded this appeal.
We are grateful to him for the propriety of his approach and we are therefore content to answer the question posed by the Magistrates in the negative. We should add, too, that, of course, we are most grateful to Ms Hancox, who appears for Mrs Meekings, for the clarity and persuasiveness of her submissions.
MS HANCOX: My Lord, I wonder if I may ask for an order for costs from central funds, for both this court and the lower court?
LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: Yes. I agree with that. Thank you both for your help.