Tuck v Vehicle Inspectorate

The prosecution may be permitted to reopen its case after a submission of no case to answer. The discretion is general, but must be exercised sparingly and with careful regard to fairness and genuine prejudice. Loss of a windfall acquittal caused by prosecutorial oversight is not, by itself, prejudice. The court should not assess the likely strength of proposed evidence when deciding whether to reopen; that assessment follows once the evidence is heard.

The appellant was convicted by Sussex Northern Magistrates’ Court of exceeding the permitted weight on a goods vehicle, contrary to regulation 80(1)(b) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and section 41B of the Road Traffic Act 1988. After a submission of no case to answer, the magistrates allowed the prosecution to recall its principal witness and subsequently convicted the appellant. The appeal concerned whether reopening was permissible, whether proper weight could be given to the recalled evidence, and whether the offence had been proved to the criminal standard.

1. The appeal was dismissed. All three questions posed by the magistrates were answered in the affirmative.
2. The discretion to permit reopening is general and is not confined to unexpected matters or technical omissions. Nevertheless, the prosecution should normally finish its case once and for all, and reopening should occur only rarely, with careful regard to fairness and prejudice.
3. The relevant question was whether the appellant suffered genuine prejudice. He had not shaped his defence around the evidential gap, sought an adjournment, or indicated a need to call further evidence. Loss of a windfall acquittal was insufficient.
4. The magistrates were not required to assess the likely strength or weight of the proposed evidence before reopening. That assessment could only occur after the evidence was heard.
5. The alleged contamination of the recalled witness was a matter for assessing credibility and weight. The magistrates were entitled to find the witness generally credible, and their factual assessment was not open to interference on the case stated appeal.
6. It was open to the magistrates to find that the plating certificate, prescribed weight and excess weight had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Costs were subject to detailed assessment.

• Sussex Northern Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant on 16 December 2003.
• High Court (Administrative Court): granted an extension of time and dismissed the appeal.