May v Director of Public Prosecutions, England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

MR JAMAS HODIVALA (instructed Jefferies Solicitor, Essex SS0 7EN)
appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT

Judges

MR JUSTICE DAVID STEEL
LORD JUSTICE LAWS

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

May v. Director of Public Prosecutions

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal by way of case stated against the decision of the Crown Court, which dismissed the appellant's appeal against her conviction for careless driving at the Magistrates' Court. The sole issue was whether the car park where the driving occurred constituted a "public place" under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The prosecution bore the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the driving happened in a public place.

The incident involved the appellant driving a vehicle that collided with five parked cars in a car park located at a commercial garage premises. The garage was a franchise on a main road, inviting public business for vehicle sales, parts, servicing, and works, with clear signage advertising its trade. The accident occurred in an inner car park area, enclosed by gates which were open during business hours. The car park was accessible directly from the main road without physical barriers. It was used by customers and potential customers of the garage for business-related purposes.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the car park at the rear of the franchise garage was a "public place" within the meaning of section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, such that the offence of careless driving could be committed there.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The burden of proving that a location is a "public place" rests on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
There must be evidence that the public actually used the premises; mere potential access is insufficient (citing R v Spence).
Premises are private if entered for reasons beneficial to the occupier or visited for business purposes (citing DPP v Vivier and Harrison v Hill).
Business premises may still be public if they serve a public utility or service, such as hospitals or railway stations, or during certain hours in a pub car park (citing R v DPP (ex parte Taussik) and R v Waters).
Premises occupied by a large number of people, even with conditions of entry, are public places because many individuals need protection under the legislation (citing Planton v DPP).

Prosecutor's Position

Agreed with the appellant's general propositions but argued the car park should be considered a public place.
The court applied a test focusing on when a member of the public ceases to be a member of the public and becomes a special class due to a special relationship with the premises.
Determined that the car park was distinguishable from premises like in Spence, as it was openly accessible and used by the public in the context of a retail commercial enterprise.
Concluded that customers parking for commercial reasons did not become a special class but remained members of the public, making the car park a public place.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Spence [1999] RTR 353	Public place requires actual public use, not just potential access.	Distinguished from the present case; Spence involved a small yard not used by the public, whereas the car park was open and publicly accessible.
DPP v Vivier [1991] 4 All ER 18	Premises are private if entry is for reasons personal to the occupier; distinction between special class and public.	Used to analyze whether users of the car park were special class or general public; court found users remained general public.
Harrison v Hill [1932] JC 13	Definition of "public" as general public, not special classes; public must have lawful access.	Supported the test for determining if users are general public or special class; helped frame the court's reasoning.
R v DPP (ex parte Taussik) (unreported, 7 June 2000)	Business premises serving public utilities may be public places.	Referenced to show exceptions where business premises can be public places, e.g., hospital car parks.
R v Waters (1963) 47 Cr App R 149	Pub car parks during licensed hours are public places.	Used to illustrate that certain commercial premises car parks can be public places.
Planton v DPP [2002] RTR 9	Premises with large numbers of users remain public places despite conditions of entry.	Supported the notion that the car park users remained public despite being customers.
Montgomery v Loney [1959] NI 171	Entry permission linked to personal reasons indicates special class, not public.	Provided guidance on distinguishing special class from general public based on reasons for admittance.
Panama (Piccadilly) Ltd v Newbury [1962] 1 All ER 769	Screening or membership without selection does not exclude premises from being public places.	Influenced the court's view that lack of selective admission means users remain public.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed whether the car park was a public place by applying established legal principles distinguishing general public access from access by a special class of persons with a personal relationship to the premises. It considered whether the car park users ceased to be members of the public by virtue of their business relationship with the garage.

The court noted that the car park was openly accessible from a public road without physical barriers, had clear signage inviting customers, and was used by the public for commercial purposes. There was no selective admission process or screening that would transform the users into a special class. The court distinguished this case from Spence, where the premises were limited and not publicly used.

Relying on authorities such as Harrison v Hill and DPP v Vivier, the court applied a test focusing on whether users have a personal reason for entry or remain part of the general public. It concluded that customers parking for commercial reasons remained members of the public, and thus the car park qualified as a public place under the statute.

The court cautioned against treating such cases as purely legal issues, emphasizing the importance of factual context and the totality of circumstances in determining the character of the premises.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the car park was a "public place" within the meaning of section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Accordingly, the appeal against the appellant's conviction for careless driving was dismissed.

The decision confirms that commercial car parks openly accessible to the public without selective admission processes can be considered public places for the purposes of road traffic offences. No new precedent was established; rather, the court applied and clarified existing principles in the context of the facts.