Iqbal v Director of Public Prosecutions

Evidence obtained before a police officer has formed grounds to suspect an offence need not be preceded by a caution. Whether an allegation concerning ownership is material depends on how the prosecution has conducted its case. Where ownership is an integral part of the prosecution case, the prosecution cannot, after failing to prove it, sustain the conviction on the different basis that the owner was unknown if that would prejudice the defendant. The inference from a defendant’s failure to give evidence arises only where the prosecution case is sufficiently strong. The doctrine of recent possession requires proof of a recent theft; it cannot cure a fundamental failure to prove the alleged theft.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by Thames Valley Justices sitting at Milton Keynes Magistrates Court on 19 December 2003 for handling stolen goods, namely a laptop computer.

The laptop had been found in the claimant’s car. The prosecution case was that it had been stolen from Daimler Chrysler, where the claimant worked as a security guard. The claimant and his passenger gave conflicting accounts of ownership before being cautioned. The magistrates admitted that conversation and convicted the claimant. The questions concerned the admissibility of the conversation, whether there was evidence that the laptop had been stolen from Daimler Chrysler, and whether there was evidence supporting the conviction.

1. Appeal allowed. The roadside conversation was admissible. Code C, paragraph 10.1, required a caution only where the officer had grounds to suspect the person of an offence and questions about the offence were being asked. On the magistrates’ findings, the officer was initially seeking to establish ownership and had not formed a suspicion that the laptop was stolen. The need for a caution had therefore not arisen.
2. The prosecution failed to prove that the laptop found in the claimant’s possession belonged to Daimler Chrysler. Although R v Deakin [1972] 3 All ER 803 held, on the facts of that case, that an averment of ownership was not material, materiality depended on how the case had been conducted below.
3. Here, ownership was an integral part of the prosecution case. The prosecution called evidence about the disappearance of a Daimler Chrysler laptop, the claimant’s access to the relevant premises, and his duties as a security guard. The claimant was entitled to understand that ownership was a material averment and to decide not to give evidence after his submission of no case had failed.
4. It would be unfair to uphold the conviction on the alternative basis that the laptop belonged to a person unknown. The prosecution had also invited an inference from the claimant’s failure to give evidence under section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but that provision applied only if the prosecution case was sufficiently strong. The doctrine of recent possession likewise required proof of a recent theft, which had not been established.
5. The court answered the first question in the affirmative and the remaining questions in the negative. The conviction disappeared; there was no remittal.

• Milton Keynes Magistrates Court: convicted the claimant of handling stolen goods on 19 December 2003.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal by case stated and held that the conviction could not stand.