Kingsnorth & Anor, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

In a prosecution for driving while disqualified, the prosecution must provide admissible evidence of every ingredient of the offence, including the defendant’s status as a disqualified driver. Magistrates cannot supplement the prosecution case by consulting their own computerised records or treating local convictions as matters of judicial notice. Court records must be formally produced in an admissible form. Proof of a previous conviction requires proof both of the conviction and that the person named in the record is the defendant. Matching personal details alone is insufficient, although admissions and other admissible evidence may establish identity. The requirement remains one of strict proof.

These were two appeals by way of case stated from convictions by magistrates for driving while disqualified under section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. In each case the prosecution had not adduced evidence proving the relevant disqualification. The magistrates nevertheless consulted computerised court records and concluded that the defendants were the persons previously disqualified.

The central question was whether magistrates could rely on their own knowledge of convictions within their jurisdiction, without formal proof, and whether matching names, dates of birth and addresses could establish identity in the absence of an evidential challenge.

1. Appeals allowed. The convictions were quashed and both cases were remitted to the appropriate Magistrates’ Courts with directions to acquit.
2. The prosecution bears responsibility for providing prima facie admissible evidence of every ingredient of the alleged offence. Where a submission of no case is made, the court must determine whether such evidence exists. If an essential ingredient is unsupported, the case should ordinarily be dismissed (para 23).
3. Magistrates cannot descend into the arena and obtain evidence through their Clerk by consulting computerised court records. Reliance on the accuracy of those records and on judicial notice was misconceived. The information obtained was unsworn and inadmissible hearsay. Any evidence derived from computer records must be adduced in an admissible form (paras 18–21).
4. Section 73 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides a recognised method of proving a conviction. It requires production of the certificate or permitted record and proof that the person named is the person whose conviction is relied upon. The statutory method is additional to other authorised methods of proof (paras 24–27).
5. Rule 68 of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981 permits the register, or a certified extract, to be evidence of the proceedings recorded. It does not permit magistrates to rely on an unproduced record or dispense with proof of identity (para 28).
6. The authorities establish that matching personal details alone is insufficient. The methods of proving identity are not exhaustive. Admissions, evidence from a person present at the earlier proceedings, or other admissible evidence may suffice, as illustrated by DPP v Mooney, Moran v Crown Prosecution Service, R v Derwentside Justices ex parte Swift and R v Sunderland Justices ex parte Bate (paras 29–36).
7. The absence of an evidential challenge to the court record had no significance because there was no admissible evidence of the essential ingredient capable of being challenged (para 42).

• Magistrates’ Courts: The Corby Magistrates and Daventry Magistrates convicted the respective defendants of driving while disqualified.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeals by way of case stated were allowed. The convictions were quashed and each case was remitted with a direction to acquit.