Director of Public Prosecutions v Dibley

An appeal by case stated is concerned with errors of law. A complaint about factual findings may amount to an error of law where there was no evidence capable of supporting the finding, or where no reasonable justices could have reached it. The High Court has jurisdiction under section 28A(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to remit a case for reconsideration. That jurisdiction should be exercised only where justice requires it. Significant delay, the absence of an important point of law, the difficulty of reconsidering evidence after time has passed, and the appellant’s failure to raise the evidential complaint in the appeal notice may justify refusing remission and dismissing the appeal.

The respondent, aged 16, was acquitted by the Mid Kent Youth Court of racially aggravated threatening behaviour, although he had pleaded guilty to criminal damage. The prosecution initially appealed on the basis that the justices had erred in law on the facts they had found. It later sought to remit the case so that the justices could reconsider a finding that the respondent had not been aware of racial hostility expressed by co-defendants. The central issue was whether the High Court should permit that new evidential challenge and remit the case for amendment.

1. Disposition. The application to remit the case to the Youth Court was refused. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The appellant’s original notice asserted that the justices were wrong in law on the facts found. That ground was unsustainable and was properly conceded. The proposed new ground was instead that there was no evidence supporting a particular factual finding, or that no reasonable justices could have reached it.
3. A factual complaint can constitute an error of law where there was no evidence on which the finding could properly be made, or where no reasonable justices could have reached the conclusion. The court had jurisdiction under section 28A(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to remit the case for reconsideration and amendment.
4. The High Court could not resolve the evidential issue itself on the material before it. Remission would cause further delay and would create difficulty because the justices had heard the evidence many months earlier. The case raised no significant question of law or issue of real public importance, and the evidential complaint had not been included in the appeal notice or properly advanced when the case was stated.
5. It was particularly important that proceedings in Youth Courts be determined promptly. In all the circumstances, justice did not require remission.

Mr Justice Jack agreed with Lord Justice Clarke.

• Mid Kent Youth Court: acquitted the respondent on 1 July 2002 of racially aggravated threatening behaviour.
• High Court (Administrative Court): considered the DPP’s appeal by case stated and later application for remission; refused remission and dismissed the appeal, [2003] EWHC 122 (Admin).