Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: Yess_shaam on September 14, 2025, 09:02:40 pm
-
oops wrong question. How were identified as not having a license
-
How were you identified as not having insurance.
I don't think he was.
-
How were you identified as not having insurance.
-
Any attempt by the OP to challenge the allegations on the basis of the subtleties of what is or isn't a road will cost them a tidy sum in fees to legal professionals (I'm willing to bet they wouldn't be able to do so themselves with even the remotest change of success). Especially as the more serious insurance allegation seems to have a wider scope. As the saying goes, "Do you feel lucky (and rich), punk?"
-
…the word 'road' has been widely interpreted by the courts to be any place to which the public has access.
I’m not so sure. Not recently, anyway.
There is a clear distinction in the wording between that in s87 (the requirement for a licence) which mentions only “a road” and that in s144 (the requirement for TP insurance) which mentions “a road or other public place”.
Interestingly, the “other public place” extension was not added to s144 until 2000. If the legislators had thought it necessary to add it to s87 as well, they could have done so but didn't. This seems to me to indicate that they believed there should be a distinction between the two.
There may have been some interpretation of “a road” (for s144 offences) needed prior to that.
-
A road goes from one place to another.
-
But the Road Traffic Act does not mention "public places" for the purposes of requiring a licence:
87. Drivers of motor vehicles to have driving licences.
(1)It is an offence for a person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class.
You are correct of course but I was trying to avoid the 'but it isn't a road' response.
As I am sure you are aware, the word 'road' has been widely interpreted by the courts to be any place to which the public has access.
That has then ben tested for what the term 'public' means (does it have to be available to absolutely anybody or just one particular group for example) and for what the term 'access' means (does it include where they have to pay for example).
A Tesco car park is well outside any of these subtleties.
....but I suspect that you already know all of that.
-
As a rule of thumb, the “roads” around a car park (as opposed to the parking bays) can indeed be a road.
-
Yes it was open at the time.
-
I'm afraid that a Tesco car park is not even marginal, it is definitely a public place for RTA purposes.
But the Road Traffic Act does not mention "public places" for the purposes of requiring a licence:
87. Drivers of motor vehicles to have driving licences.
(1)It is an offence for a person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class.
-
There is shed-loads of case law on this issue. I'm afraid that a Tesco car park is not even marginal, it is definitely a public place for RTA purposes.
-
There is a case that found a pub car park wasn’t a public space when the pub was closed and the defendant in that case got off.
Was Tesco open at the time?
-
No
-
Offence has been allegedly committed ‘drove a motor vehicle on a named road, otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising you to drive a motor vehicle of that class.’ As the alleged offence was on a tesco car park and not a road is this enough for a non guilty verdict?