Peter Cruickshank successful in High Court case stated appeal for obstruction of the highway offence
July 7, 2025
Vauxhall Bridge in Great Yarmouth is an old vehicle bridge. David Eric Smith purchased land in 1989 which covers much of the approach to one side of the bridge. Mr Smith leased that land to a business which stores and sells motor vehicles. There is a portacabin on site serving as the business office. A fence encloses the cars and portacabin. The approach to Vauxhall Bridge has therefore been effectively blocked off by the fence, portacabin, and vehicles, save for a small pedestrian pathway along the western side of the fence and leading to the bridge.
By summons dated 7 December 2023 Mr Smith was charged by Norfolk County Council, the relevant Highways Authority, with 6 offences of obstruction of the highway, contrary to section 137 of the Highways Act 1980:
(1) Three offences were alleged to have been committed on 25 August 2023, by: (i) maintaining the fence; (ii) maintaining a cabin building; and (iii) placing cars for sale on the land with such permanence as to amount to obstruction.
(2) Three further offences were alleged to have been committed on 8 September 2023, again by: (i) maintaining the fence; (ii) maintaining a cabin building; and (iii) placing cars for sale on the land with such permanence as to amount to obstruction.
At his trial, Mr Smith accepted that he had placed cars on the land, and he had responsibility for the portacabin. He said that the fence had been put up by Great Yarmouth Borough Council before he bought the land. On behalf of Mr Smith, it was said that the Court could not be satisfied there was a highway, because the presumption of s.31 Highways Act 1980 could not be satisfied. This requires the land to have been “actually enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of 20 years”. It was argued that the Council’s evidence of photos from archives and research showing the bridge between 1946 and 1988 were not enough to show 20 years continuous use. Mr Smith argued that there was uncertainty about when the 20 years continuous use ought to be calculated from, because the fence was on the land when he purchased it.
For further information and a copy of the Judgment, please visit here.
