Ashton v Crown Prosecution Service

Ashton v Crown Prosecution Service

The appellant's vehicle was not an emergency vehicle or ambulance as defined by the relevant regulations, was not constructed or adapted for conveying sick, injured or disabled persons, and the circumstances did not amount to a genuine emergency; therefore, the convictions and the magistrates' decision not to endorse the licence were upheld.

Parties
Claimant: Norman Ashton; Respondent: The Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Emergency Vehicle Definition, Special Reasons for Non Endorsement, Road Traffic Offences
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Emergency Vehicle Definition Special Reasons for Non Endorsement Road Traffic Offences

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Ashton

Claimant

The Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's vehicle was an 'emergency vehicle' under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989
  2. 2 Whether the vehicle was an 'ambulance' as defined
  3. 3 Whether the vehicle was adapted for conveying sick, injured or disabled persons

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's vehicle was not an emergency vehicle or ambulance as defined by the relevant regulations, was not constructed or adapted for conveying sick, injured or disabled persons, and the circumstances did not amount to a genuine emergency; therefore, the convictions and the magistrates' decision not to endorse the licence were upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appellant to pay respondent's costs in the sum of £1,000