Safe Speed Forums

Today the High Court ordered that, having won his case, his legal costs should be reimbursed out of public funds

A MOTORIST today won a landmark victory against a HEDGE - after he successfully argued the offending greenery blocked his view of a road sign and caused him to speed.

Businessman John Coombes was enraged when he was found guilty and fined for speeding in a 30mph zone - even though an overgrown hedge meant he could not see a roadside signpost warning of the restriction.

He described the fine - “my first speeding fine in 32 years of driving” - as highway robbery.

Today his conviction was quashed by two senior High Court judges in London who said he did not have sufficient warning that he was passing from a 40mph zone into a 30mph stretch.

Legal experts say the test case should prevent drivers being convicted in future if their view of roadside speed limit signs is obscured by overhanging trees or hedges.

Jeffrey Bannister, Mr Coombes' solicitor, said: “This is a very important point for motorists.

“This judgment has finally confirmed what many motorists have always felt - that they should not be convicted if trees and hedges overhanging or obscuring signs mean they cannot properly see the signs, and they are not given adequate notice of changes in the speed limit.”

Mr Coombes, from Wells, Somerset, was caught in a police speed trap when he exceeded 30mph on the B3139 at Horrington, near Wells, while driving home from work on July 4 last year.

He was convicted of speeding by Mendip magistrates in January this year and fined £250 and ordered to pay £150 legal costs.

Mr Coombes lost a fight at Bristol Crown Court in April after the conviction and fine were upheld and he was ordered to pay a further £229 legal costs.

Today the High Court ordered that his legal costs should be refunded out of public funds.

You would think that was common sense and that when it arose the SCP would say "fair enough" and go out with some hedge clippers, rather that all the expense that this has incurred.

But no, there seems to be a determination to "get" anyone they possibly can.

What on earth has happened to common sense?

But why did the judge order repayment of costs out of public funds

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 14:10 this afternoon:

PR424: Signs must be visible, High Court rules

news: for immediate release

The High Court has ruled today that people cannot be convicted of exceeding a
speed limit if the signs cannot be seen.

Commenting on the ruling, Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety
campaign (www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "This is a clear victory for common
sense. People cannot be expected to respond to invisible signs."

"The authorities must ensure that their signs meet all the regulations and are
not obscured."

"It's extremely hard to understand what was going on in the lower courts."

<ends>

SS - Can you provide me with any further useful links to this case? I might well be able to use it in my own defence when (if) my own speeding case comes to Court. I've already printed off the BBC story.

"It's extremely hard to understand what was going on in the lower courts."

Of course it wouldn't have anything to do with the magistrates courts being part of the partnerships.

He was convicted of speeding by Mendip magistrates in January this year and fined £250 and ordered to pay £150 legal costs.

At a recent hearing that led to the High Court ruling, photographs were produced showing that it was impossible to see the nearside 30mph sign.

Kerry Barker, appearing for the Director of Public Prosecutions, argued that the conviction was unassailable because the signs themselves were perfectly valid under the 1984 Road Traffic Act.

"Only one sign has to be seen for there to be a lawful conviction," he told the judges.

But Mr Justice Walker said it was "impossible to do anything other than conclude" that Mr Coombes had not had sufficient warning of the change in speed limit. Lord Justice Keene, who had acknowledged earlier that the case might be "of importance to a wider audience than those in court", agreed.

Not presently. Tomorrow's papers should have quite a bit, and I expect someone will post the full written judgment in time (it's often not available for a month).