Francesca Whitelaw appeared on behalf of the Respondent in Pryor v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2011] EWCA Civ 749, a case concerned with the meaning of ‘relevant certificate of insurance’ within s. 165 (2) (a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the 1988 Act’) and the circumstances in which police may seize a vehicle pursuant to s. 165A of the 1998 Act.

The appellant, Mr. Pryor, lent his Toyota motor vehicle to a friend, also providing him with a signed letter confirming Mr. Pryor’s authorisation. Mr. Pryor had just purchased the vehicle, and was waiting for the DVLA to issue a registration certificate. As such, the keeper and insurance details were not yet displayed on the Police National Computer. When stopped by the police while driving the Toyota, Mr. Pryor’s friend produced an insurance certificate in the driver’s name, confirming that he had third party insurance for any vehicle that he drove with the owner’s consent. The police officers phoned the insurer, who incorrectly informed them that the holder only had insurance on borrowed vehicles if the vehicle itself was insured by the owner. As there were no details of the vehicle’s insurance on the PNC, the vehicle was seized for having no insurance under s.165A of the 1988 Act. Mr. Pryor’s claim for interference with goods was dismissed at an initial hearing before a District Judge and on appeal to the County Court on the basis that the officers had reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of s. 143 of the 1988 Act, based on the information provided by the insurer.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Ward LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ and Black LJ, allowed Mr. Pryor’s appeal. The Court concluded that the certificate produced by the driver was a ‘relevant certificate of insurance’ for the purposes of s. 165A as it clearly stated that he was insured to drive other vehicles with the owner’s consent. There is no requirement for the certificate to make a specific reference to the vehicle actually being driven. Neither the 1988 Act nor any other legislation required the driver of the vehicle to produce evidence that he was authorised by his insurance to drive the particular vehicle being driven. The misleading information provided by the insurer did not alter the fact that, on the face of the certificate, the driver was covered by the insurance policy and that the letter from Mr. Pryor confirmed the driver’s authorisation to drive the Toyota.

Lord Justice Ward commended Ms. Whitelaw’s "spirited defence of the Chief Constable" and the way in which she put the case with "commendable charm and good humour", in the face of what "must have seemed to her more like an intense cross-examination than a Socratic development of ideas" by the Bench.

Francesca Whitelaw has extensive experience in police law and is regularly instructed in cases arising from the exercise of police powers.