Ridehalgh, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

Under Code C of the Codes of Practice, a caution is required before questioning only when there are grounds to suspect the person of an offence. Preliminary questions intended to establish whether such grounds exist do not necessarily constitute an interview. Whether questioning has crossed that line is primarily a question of fact for the magistrates, subject to review for legal error, irrationality or error of principle. Where any breach would not have caused unfairness because the defendant later repeated and expanded the admissions under caution, the conviction may nevertheless stand.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by Crawley Magistrates’ Court on 13 September 2004 for driving with excess alcohol. Before a breath test, police officers questioned him about drinking and how he had travelled to the police station, without first administering a caution. The magistrates found that this was a preliminary conversation, not an interview under Code C, and that there had been no breach. The central issues were whether the officers already had grounds to suspect an offence and whether the subsequent admissions under caution were admissible and sufficient to sustain the conviction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to find that the pre-test exchange was a conversation rather than an interview for the purposes of Code C.
2. Paragraph 10.1 requires a person to be cautioned before questions about an offence are put where there are grounds to suspect that person of an offence. Through its reference to paragraph 10.1, paragraph 11.1A makes the existence of such grounds a precondition to the need for a caution. Mere suspicion, without grounds to suspect an offence, is insufficient.
3. In investigations, officers may make preliminary enquiries to establish whether grounds for suspicion exist. The duty to caution arises once those grounds have been established. Whether that point has been reached is essentially a question of fact for the magistrates, subject to intervention for an error of law or principle or irrationality.
4. Before the questioning, the officers knew only that the claimant smelled of alcohol. They did not know when or how much he had drunk, or whether he had driven. The magistrates were therefore entitled to regard the questions as preliminary. The circumstances were more closely aligned with Whelehan v Director of Public Prosecutions [1995] RTR 177 than with Batley v Hampshire Justices [1998] EWHC Admin 212.
5. Alternatively, even if the exchange had been an interview requiring a caution, the later admissions made after caution freely repeated and elaborated the earlier admissions. No unfairness arose, and the conviction would inevitably have been reached. Costs were ordered against the appellant, and the matter was directed to return to the lower court for the necessary disqualification direction.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated from the decision of Crawley Magistrates’ Court.
• Crawley Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant on 13 September 2004 and found that the pre-caution questioning was not an interview and involved no breach of Code C.