Taylor, R (On the Application Of) v Maidstone Crown Court

A Crown Court determining a criminal appeal must give reasons sufficient to show that it identified and resolved the principal contentious issues. A bare statement that a witness is accepted may suffice in a simple case, but more detailed reasoning is required where the defence relies on a compelling matter affecting the witness’s credibility. The adequacy of the reasons must be assessed by reference to the words used when the decision was given. Later explanations cannot ordinarily cure inadequate contemporaneous reasons or amount to an ex post facto rationalisation. Where the reasons are inadequate, judicial review may quash the Crown Court’s decision and require the appeal to be reheard.

The claimant had been convicted in her absence by Sittingbourne Justices of an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act. On appeal, the Maidstone Crown Court dismissed the appeal, relying on the evidence of the sole prosecution witness. That witness had admitted making a previous false allegation against the claimant, and the claimant had denied the allegation. The Recorder initially gave only a brief statement that the court accepted the witness’s evidence. A fuller account was later supplied in response to the judicial review proceedings.

The central issues were whether the Crown Court had been required to give more detailed reasons and whether the later account could be considered in assessing the adequacy of the original decision.

1. The application succeeded. The decision of the Maidstone Crown Court was quashed, and the appeal was directed to be reheard by a differently constituted Crown Court.
2. In the particular circumstances, the Crown Court had a clear obligation to give more than the Recorder’s brief statement that the prosecution witness’s evidence was accepted. The only prosecution evidence capable of supporting the conviction came from that witness. Her admission that she had previously made a false allegation was a compelling matter in favour of the defence. The absence of other potentially available witnesses and the claimant’s own evidence also required explanation. The reasoning had to show how those matters were resolved: 99 Cr.App.R 114 DC.
3. The adequacy of reasons had to be determined by examining the words actually used when the decision was delivered. A later explanation obtained for the judicial review proceedings could not cure the defect. The court followed the approach in Pullum v Crown Prosecution Service [2000] COD 206, where subsequently elaborated reasons did not remedy inadequate reasons given at the time. Reasons should ordinarily be given contemporaneously, so that the losing party can be confident that there has been no ex post facto rationalisation.
4. The case was not so simple, and the reasons were not so obvious, that no further explanation was needed. The appropriate relief was therefore not limited to quashing the Crown Court’s decision. The appeal had to be reheard, with a different constitution. The costs position was to be dealt with upon preparation or lodging of the relevant certificate.

• Maidstone Crown Court: On 14 February 2003, dismissed the claimant’s appeal against her conviction.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Quashed the Crown Court’s decision and ordered a rehearing before a differently constituted Crown Court.