"Mini-moto" ruled a vehicle in driving ban case
27 Jul 05
Small size and recreational purpose irrelevant to legal test, says appeal court
A man who rode a "mini-moto" miniature motorbike on Dunfermline streets while banned from driving, was driving a motor vehicle in terms of the Road Traffic Act, the appeal court has held.
The court allowed a Crown appeal against the sheriff's decision that Kevin McHale had no case to answer on charges of driving while disqualified and without insurance because the mini-moto was not a motor vehicle.
The mini-moto, which had a seat only a foot off the ground, was produced at McHale's trial. The manufacturers had attached a warning label to the effect that it was not intended for use on public roads and should not be used thus. It did not conform to safety standards. When a police witness, PC Stein, was asked to sit on it, he could do so only with difficulty. PC Stein gave evidence that the mini-moto was meant for fun recreational use by adults or children.
In giving his ruling the sheriff applied the 1963 English case of Burns v Currell, which proposed a test of whether a reasonable person would contemplate some general use on the roads as one of the uses for the vehicle. He decided that only someone losing their senses would use it on a road.
The appeal court however said that as the mini-moto was mechanically propelled, and capable of carrying an adult driver, no more was required to satisfy the statutory definition. "The statute does not require comfort while driving." And because of the wide definition of "road", the court added, "it is not necessary for the purposes of the statutory definition that the vehicle be capable of being driven in traffic in the way that a full-size motor cycle would... the fact that the mini-moto may be more suited to recreational than to other purposes does not distinguish it from many other types of motor cycle, such as trail bikes". It was also relevant that the accused was riding it on a road and was not said to be losing his senses.
"In our view", the court concluded, sending the case back to sheriff, "on the evidence placed before the court by the Crown, and applying the test in Burns v Currell, a reasonable person looking at the mini-moto would say that one of its uses would be a road use. The evidence was more than sufficient to satisfy the statutory definition of 'motor vehicle'."
The court's opinion can be read at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005HCJAC86.html .