Horner v Director of Public Prosecutions

On an appeal by case stated, the appellate court must have sufficient information about the evidence received and the findings made to determine whether a conviction was justified. Where the case stated does not identify the evidence supporting essential findings or explain the conclusions reached on material issues, the court should remit it to the magistrates for amendment. The amended case should state the relevant findings and identify the evidence, if any, on which they were based.

Horner appealed by case stated from his conviction by Bath Magistrates' Court on 16 May 2005 for failing to provide information under section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The case stated asked whether there was admissible evidence entitling the magistrates to be sure that Horner was the keeper of the vehicle. The claimant sought an amendment addressing whether a requirement to identify the driver had been made and whether it had been breached. The central issue was whether the case stated contained sufficient evidence and findings to enable the Administrative Court to determine the conviction.

1. The appeal was remitted to the magistrates for amendment of the case stated.
2. The case stated was materially unclear. It did not provide sufficient particulars of the evidence relating to the essential issues, identify what evidence had been adduced, or explain the evidence on which the magistrates based their conclusions. In those circumstances, the Administrative Court could not properly resolve the issues or determine the appellant's guilt.
3. The case was to be amended by adding the question whether the magistrates received admissible evidence that a requirement had been made of the appellant, by or on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police, to provide information identifying the driver at the relevant time, and that he had failed to comply.
4. The magistrates were also directed to state their findings on those issues and the evidence, if any, on which those findings were based. The court directed that a transcript of the judgment be sent to the magistrates.

The statutory context was the obligation imposed by section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the offence created by section 172(3).

• High Court (Administrative Court): On an appeal by case stated, the court remitted the case to Bath Magistrates' Court for amendment and clarification.
• Bath Magistrates' Court: Convicted the appellant on 16 May 2005 under section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.