[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Meekings v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police [2010] EWHC 2141 (Admin) (01 July 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/2141.html Cite as: [2010] EWHC 2141 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		1 July 2010

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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?
6. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: Yes. I agree with that. Thank you both for your help.