Director of Public Prosecutions v Issler & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE RAFFERTY
- MR JUSTICE JAY
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the dismissal of charges at Bury Magistrates' Court. Michael Issler and Mordechai Bamberger, members of Hatzola, were charged with using vehicles equipped with sirens and blue lights while responding to an accident. The lower court found their actions fell under 'ambulance purposes.' However, the appeal court determined that the vehicles were not primarily used for transporting sick or injured persons, thus not qualifying for exemptions. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted back with directions to convict.
Judgment
Mr Justice Jay:
Introduction
This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions by way of case stated from the decision of District Judge Richardson made at Bury Magistrates’ Court on 2 nd October 2013, where two informations laid against each of Mr Michael Issler and Mr Mordechai Bamberger were dismissed. The appeal raises a point of principle as to the meaning of the term “ambulance purposes” in relevant subordinate legislation.
The Informations
The information laid against Mr Issler alleged as follows:-
“On 14 th October 2012 at Bury you used a motor vehicle, namely a Renault Grand Espace Dynamique VRN L011YKS fitted with a siren, contrary to Regulation 37(4) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 .
On 14 th October 2012 at Bury used on a road, namely Bury New Road, Prestwich, a vehicle, namely a Renault Grand Espace Dynamique VRN L011YKS fitted with a blue warning beacon contrary to Regulation 16 of the Vehicles Licensing Regulations 1989 and Section 42 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 .”
The information against Mr Bamberger alleged as follows:-
“On 14 th October 2012 at Bury you used a motor vehicle, namely a Mercedes VRN H5BYM fitted with a siren, contrary to Regulation 37(4) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 .
On 14 th October 2012 at Bury used on a road, namely Bury New Road, Prestwich, a vehicle, namely a Mercedes VRN H5 BYM fitted with a blue warning beacon contrary to Regulation 16 of the Vehicles Licensing Regulations 1989 and Section 42 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 .”
Essential Factual Background and the Proceedings Below
The essence of the case against the respondents was that on 14 th October 2012 each had driven a motor vehicle fitted with two-tone sirens and blue flashing lights, that is, “blues and twos”. At or shortly before 8.15pm that evening a road traffic accident occurred at the junction of Kings Road and Bury New Road on the outskirts of Bury involving a car and a motorcycle, and a police officer witnessed the respondents’ vehicles approaching the scene at 8.17pm. On arrival, the drivers identified themselves as Hatzola Fast Response personnel