McConnell v HM Advocate [2011] ScotHC HCJAC_6 (16 November 2010)

McConnell v HM Advocate [2011] ScotHC HCJAC_6 (16 November 2010)

Regulation 3 of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 is directory, not mandatory; substantial compliance with its notification requirements is sufficient to uphold the validity of the temporary speed restriction order.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] ScotHC HCJAC_6
Parties
Appellant: Procurator Fiscal, Airdrie; Respondent: Thomas McConnell
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Decision of Justice of the Peace Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Validity of Temporary Speed Restriction Order, Mandatory Vs Directory Procedural Requirements, Notification Requirements Under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Administrative Law Validity of Temporary Speed Restriction Order Mandatory Vs Directory Procedural Requirements Notification Requirements Under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Procurator Fiscal, Airdrie

Appellant

Thomas McConnell

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Decision of Justice of the Peace Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to notify police and fire services of a temporary speed restriction order on or before the day it was made invalidates the order
  2. 2 Whether the procedural requirements in regulation 3 of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 are mandatory or directory

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 3 of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 is directory, not mandatory; substantial compliance with its notification requirements is sufficient to uphold the validity of the temporary speed restriction order.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Respondent's plea to the competency of the complaint repelled
  • Case remitted to the Justice of the Peace Court to proceed as accords