- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Woods v Richards (1977) OBD - Study Notes
Case Summary
Case Summary
- Parties: Woods (appellant) v Richards (respondent).
- Court: OBD (Original British Digest - Note: This likely refers to a specific legal reporter or court level not universally known. For modern study, focus on the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, if the original case was there).
- Year: 1977
- Defendant: A police driver responding to an emergency call.
- Action: Pulled onto the hard shoulder to bypass a queue, believing it to be clear.
- Incident: Collided with a broken-down vehicle on the hard shoulder, causing damage.
- Outcome: Convicted of driving without due care and attention.
- Could the defence of necessity be raised by a police driver in this situation?
- Should a special standard of care apply to police drivers responding to emergencies?
- Necessity was not a defence in this case.
- No precedent: There was no legal authority supporting the argument for a special standard of care for police drivers.
- Statutory interpretation: The Road Traffic Act 1972, s 3 (driving without due care and attention) did not contain any provisions allowing for exceptions for police drivers.
- Elements of necessity: The existence of the defence of necessity depends on the degree of emergency or the alternative danger that the driver was trying to avert.
- Judicial restraint: Natural sympathy for police drivers does not empower the court to re-write the legal requirements of an offence.
- Strict liability for traffic offences: Police drivers, like all drivers, are subject to the same legal standards regarding road traffic offences.
- Limited scope of necessity defence: The defence of necessity is narrowly construed and requires a demonstrable and immediate danger to be averted.
- Parliamentary intent: Exceptions to general road traffic laws must be explicitly provided for by Parliament in legislation.
0 Comments