Director of Public Prosecutions v D

Director of Public Prosecutions v D

The District Judge erred by limiting the 'obvious danger' test to careful drivers; the correct test is whether a reasonable person would consider the obstruction obviously dangerous, taking into account that not all drivers act prudently. The appeal is allowed and the case remitted for retrial.

Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: D
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Information at Submission of No Case to Answer
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Road Traffic Offences, Dangerous Obstruction, Youth Court Procedure
Criminal Law Road Traffic Offences Dangerous Obstruction Youth Court Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

D

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Information at Submission of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether placing a sign on the road was obviously dangerous under section 22A(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge applied the correct legal test for 'obvious danger'

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge erred by limiting the 'obvious danger' test to careful drivers; the correct test is whether a reasonable person would consider the obstruction obviously dangerous, taking into account that not all drivers act prudently. The appeal is allowed and the case remitted for retrial.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Extension of time granted
  • Case remitted to Youth Court for re-hearing before a different District Judge or bench of justices