Castle v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 587 (Admin) (24 January 2014)

Castle v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 587 (Admin) (24 January 2014)

The 2011 Order was validly made under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which authorises the imposition of variable speed limits as necessary. The Order was not ultra vires because the Secretary of State could lawfully act through authorised officials in the Highways Agency under the Carltona principle, and the act of signing by a Highways Agency employee was constitutionally the act of the Secretary of State. There was no unlawful delegation or deficiency in the making or enforcement of the Order.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 587 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Castle; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Variable Speed Limits, Delegation of Ministerial Powers, Statutory Interpretation, Ultra Vires, Carltona Principle, Subordinate Legislation, Traffic Regulation Orders
Criminal Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Road Traffic Law Variable Speed Limits Delegation of Ministerial Powers Statutory Interpretation Ultra Vires +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Castle

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2011 Order permitted variable speed limits
  2. 2 Whether the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 authorised variable speed limits
  3. 3 Whether the 2011 Order was ultra vires due to being signed by a Highways Agency employee

Ratio Decidendi

The 2011 Order was validly made under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which authorises the imposition of variable speed limits as necessary. The Order was not ultra vires because the Secretary of State could lawfully act through authorised officials in the Highways Agency under the Carltona principle, and the act of signing by a Highways Agency employee was constitutionally the act of the Secretary of State. There was no unlawful delegation or deficiency in the making or enforcement of the Order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Detailed public funding assessment ordered
  • Written submissions invited on certification and leave to appeal