Article · PNLD


Obstruction of highway Correct on the date of publication - 13 May 2024 Question: What might amount to an obstruction of the road or a highway etc? Answer: The two main legal provisions that deal with obstruction offences are: Wilful obstruction of the highway contrary to section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. This provides that it's an offence for a person without lawful authority or excuse to, in any way, wilfully obstruct the free passage along a highway. Unnecessary obstruction contrary to regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This provides that it's an offence for a person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer to cause or permit the vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction. As is evident from the above, depending on the offence, it will be necessary to show the obstruction was either wilful (section 137) or unnecessary (regulation 103). It’s also important to be aware that in the case of section 137, lawful authority or excuse constitutes a defence. It is submitted that wilful means deliberate e.g., if someone was asked/required to move whatever was said to be causing the obstruction and they refused, they would be acting wilfully. With regard to regulation 103, it will be a matter for a court to decide whether an obstruction was unnecessary. A leading case on what constitutes an obstruction is Nagy v Weston [1965] 1 All ER 78, where it was held that parking a van for five minutes in a busy public street to sell hot dogs and refusing to move when asked to do so by a constable, was obstruction under what is now section137 of the Highways Act 1980. Lord Parker CJ said: ‘… that there must be proof that the use in question was an unreasonable use. Whether or not the user amounting to an obstruction is or is not an unreasonable use of the highway is a question of fact. It depends upon all the circumstances, including the length of time the obstruction continues, the place where it occurs, the purpose for which it is done, and of course whether it does in fact cause an actual obstruction as opposed to a potential obstruction.’ Lord Parker’s words were expressly approved by Ashworth J in Evans v Barker [1971] RTR 453 – see below. The cases below provide further insight in relation to how the courts have interpreted the legislation above: Evans v Barker [1971] RTR 453 – leaving a vehicle on a road for a reasonable time, even if it was an obstruction, didn’t amount to an unnecessary obstruction for the purpose of what is now regulation 103. Nelmes v Rhys Howells Transport Ltd [1977] RTR 266 – the definition of obstruction given in Nagy v Weston above was again used in a case involving what is now regulation 103. The defendants didn’t have enough room in their yard, so they parked some of their trailers on the road. The justices found there was no case to answer because the facts did not amount to an unreasonable use of the highway considering the length of time the obstruction continued, and that there was no evidence of actual obstruction. However, on appeal by the prosecutor, Lord Widgery CJ stated: ‘In this type of case it must always be remembered that the purpose of the highway is to provide a means of transit from one point to another and to provide for the requirements of people in transit for short journeys and the like. It is not intended as a store for old metal or a parking place for motor cars. It is in that sense that one must always consider the purpose of the obstruction as one of the factors in deciding whether the obstruction was a reasonable one or not. In the present instance, as it seems to me, these five enormous trailers were being placed on the ground for storage only and not for a purpose directly, or even indirectly, connected with transit. The appeal will be allowed and the case will go back to the justices with a direction to continue the hearing.’ Wade v Grange [1977] RTR 417 – what constitutes an obstruction will primarily be a question of fact. Brown v Cardle 1983 SLT 218 – parking in a bus bay for five minutes, without any evidence that a bus was trying to park there, was held not to be an unnecessary obstruction under what is now regulation 103. Wall v Williams [1966] Crim LR 50 – taxi driver making a U-turn in a busy street, against the advice of a constable, held up traffic for approximately a minute. The Divisional Court held there was ample evidence on which magistrates were entitled to conclude there had been an obstruction contrary to what is now regulation 103. Mounsey v Campbell (1983) – parking a van right up against the bumper of a car and then refusing to move so as to enable the car to move was held to be an obstruction. Hertfordshire County Council v Bolden (1987) 151 JP 252 – a display of vegetables for sale at weekends that projected nine feet onto the footpath and which took up half the width of the path was an obstruction.

Obstruction of highway

Correct on the date of publication - 13 May 2024

Question:

What might amount to an obstruction of the road or a highway etc?

Answer:

The two main legal provisions that deal with obstruction offences are:

Wilful obstruction of the highway contrary to section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. This provides that it's an offence for a person without lawful authority or excuse to, in any way, wilfully obstruct the free passage along a highway.
Unnecessary obstruction contrary to regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This provides that it's an offence for a person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer to cause or permit the vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction.

As is evident from the above, depending on the offence, it will be necessary to show the obstruction was either wilful (section 137) or unnecessary (regulation 103). It’s also important to be aware that in the case of section 137, lawful authority or excuse constitutes a defence. It is submitted that wilful means deliberate e.g., if someone was asked/required to move whatever was said to be causing the obstruction and they refused, they would be acting wilfully. With regard to regulation 103, it will be a matter for a court to decide whether an obstruction was unnecessary.

A leading case on what constitutes an obstruction is Nagy v Weston [1965] 1 All ER 78, where it was held that parking a van for five minutes in a busy public street to sell hot dogs and refusing to move when asked to do so by a constable, was obstruction under what is now section137 of the Highways Act 1980. Lord Parker CJ said:

‘… that there must be proof that the use in question was an unreasonable use. Whether or not the user amounting to an obstruction is or is not an unreasonable use of the highway is a question of fact. It depends upon all the circumstances, including the length of time the obstruction continues, the place where it occurs, the purpose for which it is done, and of course whether it does in fact cause an actual obstruction as opposed to a potential obstruction.’

Lord Parker’s words were expressly approved by Ashworth J in Evans v Barker [1971] RTR 453 – see below.
The cases below provide further insight in relation to how the courts have interpreted the legislation above:

Evans v Barker [1971] RTR 453 – leaving a vehicle on a road for a reasonable time, even if it was an obstruction, didn’t amount to an unnecessary obstruction for the purpose of what is now regulation 103.
Nelmes v Rhys Howells Transport Ltd [1977] RTR 266 – the definition of obstruction given in Nagy v Weston above was again used in a case involving what is now regulation 103. The defendants didn’t have enough room in their yard, so they parked some of their trailers on the road. The justices found there was no case to answer because the facts did not amount to an unreasonable use of the highway considering the length of time the obstruction continued, and that there was no evidence of actual obstruction. However, on appeal by the prosecutor, Lord Widgery CJ stated:

‘In this type of case it must always be remembered that the purpose of the highway is to provide a means of transit from one point to another and to provide for the requirements of people in transit for short journeys and the like. It is not intended as a store for old metal or a parking place for motor cars. It is in that sense that one must always consider the purpose of the obstruction as one of the factors in deciding whether the obstruction was a reasonable one or not.

In the present instance, as it seems to me, these five enormous trailers were being placed on the ground for storage only and not for a purpose directly, or even indirectly, connected with transit.

The appeal will be allowed and the case will go back to the justices with a direction to continue the hearing.’

Wade v Grange [1977] RTR 417 – what constitutes an obstruction will primarily be a question of fact.
Brown v Cardle 1983 SLT 218 – parking in a bus bay for five minutes, without any evidence that a bus was trying to park there, was held not to be an unnecessary obstruction under what is now regulation 103.
Wall v Williams [1966] Crim LR 50 – taxi driver making a U-turn in a busy street, against the advice of a constable, held up traffic for approximately a minute. The Divisional Court held there was ample evidence on which magistrates were entitled to conclude there had been an obstruction contrary to what is now regulation 103.
Mounsey v Campbell (1983) – parking a van right up against the bumper of a car and then refusing to move so as to enable the car to move was held to be an obstruction.
Hertfordshire County Council v Bolden (1987) 151 JP 252 – a display of vegetables for sale at weekends that projected nine feet onto the footpath and which took up half the width of the path was an obstruction.

Obstruction of highway

Question:

Answer:

Obstruction of highway

Question:

Answer:

Not found