By 17.35 Mr. Mollanaghi had not attended and there had been no application for an adjournment. I proceeded to deal with the matter on the basis of the notice of appeal, the enforcement authority (EA)’s case summary and all the material, evidence and representations submitted by both parties.
Mr. Mollanaghi appeals against a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued in respect of an alleged contravention of the requirements of a ‘box junction’, as defined in paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. Paragraph 11 goes on to say:
“(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who
(a) causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b) stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle or [my emphasis] other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.”
There is no doubt on the evidence that Mr. Mollanaghi’s vehicle entered the box junction and stopped within it due to the presence of stationary vehicles. On the face of it, therefore, the alleged contravention is proved. But that is not the end of the matter.
Mr. Mollanaghi applies on the above sub-paragraph, (3). There does not appear to be a dispute – and I would in any event have decided – that the junction is one to which sub-paragraph 6(a) applies because it is a junction between two or more roads.
What Mr. Mollanaghi was doing at that junction was, self-evidently, turning right, and he entered the box junction for the purpose of doing so. There could not be any dispute about that. Sub-paragraph (3)(a) is therefore satisfied.
The EA asserts that nonetheless the exemption does apply because sub-paragraph 3(b) does not apply. That is because, the EA submits, there were no ‘oncoming’ vehicles. That is indeed correct as a statement of fact. However, as subsection (3)(b) makes clear, the presence of oncoming vehicles or, respectively, of vehicles which are stationary whilst completing right turns, are alternatives. It follows that it is not necessary, for sub-paragraph (3) to apply, for there to be oncoming vehicles.
I turn then to consider whether, on the evidence, sub-paragraph 3(b) applies. I looked carefully at the position of the vehicle ahead of Mr. Mollanaghi’s vehicle vis-à-vis the carriageway at the point the two vehicles were stationary. I find that neither Mr. Mollanaghi’s vehicle nor the car in front of it had completed their respective right turns. The vehicle ahead had not yet fully lined up with the carriageway and was still in the process of turning right when it came to a halt. Mr. Mollanaghi’s vehicle was only stationary behind the vehicle ahead whilst that other vehicle was stationary in the position I have described, waiting to complete its own right turn. Accordingly, I find that sub-paragraph (3)(b) applies with the effect that sub-paragraph (3) as a whole applies and the contravention is not proved.
Rather the contravening vehicle in this case is that vehicle ahead of Mr. Mollanaghi’s vehicle. Whilst that vehicle was turning right at the point it was stationary, the vehicle ahead of it was not and had completed its right turn. Therefore, whilst sub-paragraph 3(b) applies to Mr. Mollanaghi’s vehicle it does not apply to the vehicle in front of his.
The above is a case heard by Jack Walsh re turning right at a Tee junction 2190001784
Given the positioning of the car in front and that of the OP it seems to me to fit perfectly
