See 2180035633 edited to only the relevant part
The Authority relies on CCTV footage showing the appellant's vehicle entering the junction in order to turn right. The vehicle has to stop in the junction because of stationary traffic in the lane he wishes to join. The Authority says that stationary traffic in the oncoming lane is not' oncoming traffic' and therefore the Appellant cannot rely on the exception to the prohibition against stopping in a box junction.
I disagree with the Authority. I find that the term oncoming traffic should be construed broadly as this is in line with the purpose of the exception to the prohibition on entering junctions. It is hard to see how there would ever be cars waiting to turn right (as envisaged in the second limb of the exception) if the Authority's interpretation were correct.
In the circumstances I am not satisfied the Authority has shown that a contravention occurred or that it is entitled to enforce the Penalty Charge Notice.
and
2190001784 edited to relevant part
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.
