R v Lang: Conviction Quashed for Smoking in Tractor

Background of R v Lang case

R v Lang

Appeal

Mr Lang is a farmer and had been working with his tractor in the fields. Before driving the tractor back to the farm, he decided to light up his pipe. He took a few puffs and with his pipe in his mouth turned out onto the country lane for the short drive home. Mr Lang was spotted smoking his pipe in his tractor and was reported to the police. Mr Lang was convicted of smoking tobacco while in a vehicle, contrary to s1 Law Reform (Prohibition of Smoking) Act 2012. Mr Lang appealed. Hendon delivered the first judgment.

The question for the court is whether Mr Lang’s conduct is within the offence in s1 Law Reform (Prohibition of Smoking) Act 2012. It is therefore necessary for the prosecution to show, firstly, that the defendant was in a “vehicle”; and secondly, that while in the vehicle he smoked contrary to s1. In my view, this prosecution must fall at the first hurdle. The definition of a vehicle is contained in section 2(2) which states: vehicle’ means any car, lorry, taxi, van, bus, coach or other mechanical form of road transportation

A farm tractor is undoubtedly a mechanical form of transportation but it is not designed principally for road transportation as are the other vehicles specifically set out in s2(2). There are many types of tractor e.g. farm tractors, garden tractors and orchard tractors which are all working vehicles. Indeed the Oxford English Dictionary definition of a tractor is “farm vehicle: a motor vehicle used for pulling heavy loads, especially on farms, where its large rear wheels enable it to move in fields”.

Furthermore, all the other vehicles specifically mentioned in s2(2) are capable of carrying passengers; whereas typically a tractor only has a single seat for the driver. To bring tractors within the scope of s2(2) would go way beyond what was intended by Parliament. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the reason for enacting the Law Reform (Prohibition of Smoking) Act was principally to protect drivers and passengers from the ill effects of passive smoking and I have found support for this view in the following extract from the Official Record of the House of Commons when the Act was considered by Parliament: “The time has come to put an end to pa ssive smoking in vehicles. In the 21 st century non-smokers, particularly children, should not have to tolerate the rancid second hand smoke of another vehicle user. Second hand smoke is not just unpleasant; it is positively dangerous to health”. Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health. 

Having come to the conclusion that a tractor is not a vehicle for the purposes of the Act, it is not necessary for me to express any view on the other issue raised in this appeal and I do not do so. I would allow the appeal and quash the conviction.

I have had the advantage of reading in advance the judgment of Lord Hendon CJ, but I am afraid that, although I have come to the same conclusion as to the outcome of this appeal, I cannot agree entirely with the reasoning offered. I cannot accept that all tractors are not vehicles for the purposes of s2(2) of the Act. I agree that certain tractors e.g. farm, garden and orchard tractors (to which Lord Hendon alludes) may not be designed primarily for road transportation and may only be single-seater; but what about, for instance, the many “tractors” we see on our roads towing large trailers. Lord Hendon cited one Oxford English Dictionary definition of “tractor,” which was a farm tractor, but another is: “front part of a heavy tr uck: a large vehicle, the front section of a truck used to haul heavy loads, with a driving cab, engine, and coupling for trailers.