Weights and Measures Act 1963–Inspector went ‘beyond limit’ in going into garden of private house–Error such as to invalidate his request to be allowed to weigh bag of coke filled from auto-bagging vehicle–Inspector’s appeal from decisions acquitting coalmen of failure to comply with request etc dismissed
This was an
appeal by Mr Albert Brunner, consumer protection officer for Cleveland County
Council, from the dismissal by justices sitting at Middlesbrough on August 27
1974 of two informations, the first alleging that the first respondent, Mr
Randolph Williams, of Middlesbrough, failed to comply with a request made to
him by Mr Francis Trotter, a weights and measures inspector, that he be
permitted to weigh a bag of coke, and the second that the second respondent, Mr
Ronald Gladwin, also of Middlesbrough, obstructed Mr Trotter in the execution
of his duty.
Mr G W Davey
(instructed by Lewin, Gregory, Mead & Sons, agents for W Scott, of
Middlesbrough) appeared for the appellant, and Mr A D Temple (instructed by
Robbins, Olivey & Lake, agents for Gilchrist Smith, Vaux & Walker, of
Middlesbrough) represented the respondents.
Giving
judgment, LORD WIDGERY said that Mr Trotter and an assistant were on duty in
Billington on April 19 1974 when they saw the respondents delivering coke to a
dwelling-house, filling their sacks from an auto-bagging vehicle. As Mr
Williams was crossing the pavement to the front gate of the house, Mr Trotter
called to him not to tip the coke into the coal bunker, as he wanted to weigh
it. Mr Williams apparently did not hear, and continued up the garden path. Mr
Trotter then followed Mr Williams up the path to the side of the house, where
he repeated his request. The second respondent, Mr Gladwin, then approached and
told Mr Williams, ‘Tip it in.’ Mr
Williams then tipped the coke into the coal bunker. Under the Weights and
Measures Act 1963, duly appointed inspectors had power to visit premises and
make inquiries except where the premises were used solely as private
dwelling-houses. In the present case the appellant conceded that the garden of
a private house was to be treated as part of the premises. It was also conceded
that when the inspector moved from the highway into the garden he was not there
by virtue of any statutory power. The question was whether, when he made the
second request, the inspector was on the premises lawfully or unlawfully.
In his (Lord
Widgery’s) judgment, the principle to be applied was that anyone who had a
genuine reason for wishing to enter a house or its curtilage had an implied
licence from the occupier to approach the front, or nearest, door and ask
permission to enter on the land. If Mr Trotter had simply gone to the front
door and asked permission to enter on the land, he would have been within his
rights, but he went further. It was clear that he did not go to the front door,
because had he done so the coke would have then been tipped into the bunker
before he could have repeated his earlier request. He had accordingly gone
beyond the limit, and it followed that at the time when he repeated his request
to the respondent Williams he was on private premises without lawful authority.
In those circumstances his request was unlawful, and no offence had been
committed by either respondent. The appeal should be dismissed.
ASHWORTH and
BRIDGE JJ agreed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
