Steward, R (On the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

Magistrates may correct an erroneous ruling of no case to answer before the process of adjudication is complete, particularly where the error is identified immediately and both parties agree that a mistake has been made. The ruling does not automatically amount to an acquittal at that stage.

Evidence that a blood specimen was taken with the accused’s consent by a medical practitioner is not confined to oral evidence or a certificate from that practitioner. Other admissible evidence, including evidence from a police officer who witnessed the events, may establish those matters. A case stated should be read fairly and at face value where its factual findings are unequivocal.

Gary David Steward appealed by case stated from the decision of Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court following his conviction for driving with excess alcohol in his blood, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The magistrates initially ruled that there was no case to answer because they mistakenly believed that the analyst’s certificate had not been served in time. After that mistake was identified and accepted, they reopened the issue, continued the trial and convicted the appellant.

The appeal concerned whether the magistrates had jurisdiction to reopen the case, whether evidence from a police officer could establish consent and the medical practitioner’s status under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support conviction.

1. Reopening the ruling. The appeal was dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to correct their ruling before the process of adjudication had been completed. The court distinguished R v Essex Justices ex parte Final [1963] 2 QB 816, where the justices had announced a completed decision and were functi officio. The same principle did not apply where reasons were still being given, an error was immediately identified, and both sides agreed that the ruling rested on a mistake. The court also distinguished the point described in S v Recorder of Manchester [1971] AC 481, namely completion of the adjudicative process.
2. Evidence of consent and medical status. Section 16(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is permissive. It provides a convenient certificate procedure, but does not make a medical practitioner’s oral evidence or certificate the exclusive means of proving that a blood specimen was taken with consent by a medical practitioner. Other admissible evidence may establish those matters.
3. Sufficiency of evidence. The police officer’s evidence that he arranged for the police surgeon to attend, observed the surgeon obtain consent, and observed him take the blood samples was sufficient. The evidence was not challenged, and it was fanciful to suggest that the police surgeon was not a medical practitioner.
4. The court answered all three questions in the case stated in the affirmative. The conviction and sanctions imposed by the magistrates stood, and the suspension of the sanctions pending appeal ended.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On appeal by case stated, the court answered all three questions in the affirmative and dismissed the appeal. The sanctions imposed by Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court were no longer suspended.