Director of Public Prosecutions v Bayliff

Rejecting a submission of no case to answer does not ordinarily require magistrates to convict. They may reassess the prosecution evidence at the end of the trial and conclude that guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, where the case is stated on the legal sufficiency of the evidence, evidence that a driver gave the defendant’s name and address, coupled with the defendant’s appearance by counsel, is evidence capable of proving identity. The approach in Creed v Scott therefore entitled magistrates to convict, particularly where additional evidence connected the driver with the vehicle’s registered owner. The appeal succeeded and the matter was remitted for rehearing.

The prosecution appealed by way of case stated from the dismissal by Nuneaton Magistrates’ Court of three informations concerning speeding, use without insurance and failure to produce an insurance certificate. Police evidence identified the driver by the name, address and date of birth supplied at the roadside. The respondent did not attend personally but was represented by counsel and called no evidence.

The magistrates rejected a submission of no case to answer, but later dismissed the informations because they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was the respondent. The central issue was whether, in law, the evidence was sufficient to entitle the magistrates to convict despite the respondent’s absence.

1. The appeal by way of case stated was allowed. The magistrates’ question was answered in the negative and their decision could not stand.

2. Rejecting a submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution evidence does not prevent magistrates from reconsidering the evidence after all evidence and submissions have been heard. They may revise a provisional view and acquit if the prosecution has not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This accords with the approach discussed in Scruby v Beskeen.

3. The wording of the case stated showed that the magistrates considered a question of law, namely whether the evidence was sufficient to entitle them to convict. On that issue, Creed v Scott was directly applicable. Evidence that the driver supplied the defendant’s name and address was evidence of identity, although not conclusive. The defendant’s appearance by counsel was also relevant.

4. There was additional evidence here because the driver identified himself as an employee of a particular company and the vehicle was proved to be registered to that company. The evidence therefore entitled the magistrates to convict. The legal issue could not be avoided by treating the dismissal as merely a factual evaluation.

5. The matter was formally remitted to Nuneaton Magistrates’ Court for rehearing.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was allowed. The magistrates’ decision was set aside and the matter was remitted to Nuneaton Magistrates’ Court for rehearing.
• Nuneaton Magistrates’ Court: On 10 July 2002, the magistrates rejected a submission of no case to answer but dismissed the informations because identity was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.