0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Ashton v Director of Public Prosecutions, Divisional Court, 9 November 2005

24 November 2005
The issues

Emergency Vehicles – Ambulance Drivers – Private Vehicles – Whether Private vehicle could be treated as an emergency vehicle – Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 Regulation 3

The facts

The Defendant used his own private vehicle to respond to a duty call to collect an ambulance and use it to take an ill child to hospital. On his way to collect the ambulance he used a flashing blue light and drove in excess of the applicable speed limits. He was charged in the Magistrate’s Court with offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989. he was convicted on the basis that the Magistrates took the view that the vehicle was not an emergency vehicle in this case an ambulance within the meaning of regulation 3 of the 1989 Regulations because it was not constructed or adapted for the use of sick, injured or disabled people.

The decision

The Magistrates had been entitled to conclude that the Defendant’s vehicle was not an ambulance. It approached the matter correctly by seeking to ascertain whether the vehicle came within the definition contained in the 1989 Regulations.

Appeal dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up