Sonny Steve Pattison v Director of Public Prosecutions

Identity for the purpose of proving a previous conviction may be established by any admissible evidence satisfying the criminal standard. A certificate of conviction is only the first evidential step; the prosecution must also prove that the accused is the person named in it. Matching name, date of birth and address may establish a prima facie case and, absent evidence suggesting a realistic alternative identity, may support conviction. The court may consider an accused’s failure to give evidence where the statutory conditions, including a proper warning, are met.

In a specimen case, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving reasonable excuse. The court must assess the whole evidence, including later conduct, and is not necessarily bound by an officer’s provisional acceptance of a medical explanation.

The appellant appealed by way of Case Stated from convictions at Leeds Magistrates’ Court for driving while disqualified and failing to provide a specimen for analysis, among other offences.

The prosecution relied on a certificate of conviction recording a person with the appellant’s name, date of birth and address as having been disqualified. The appellant denied driving but did not contradict the alleged previous disqualification. In relation to the specimen offence, an officer initially accepted asthma as a possible medical reason for not providing breath, but the appellant later refused to provide blood, referring to steroids and religious belief.

The questions were whether the evidence proved the appellant’s identity as the disqualified person and whether the magistrates could properly find that he had failed without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 73(1), proof of a previous conviction involves producing the certificate and proving, to the criminal standard, that the person named in it is the accused. The identity issue may be proved by any admissible means. The methods mentioned in R v Derwentside Justices ex parte Heaviside were examples, not an exhaustive code.

2. A coincidence between the accused’s name, date of birth and address and the details on the certificate can establish a prima facie case, even where the name is not uncommon. If the accused produces no evidence suggesting a realistic alternative explanation, the magistrates may be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the identities are the same. A failure to give evidence may be considered under section 35(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 where a warning has been given and it is fair to do so.

3. The magistrates were entitled to rely on the matching details, the appellant’s repeated failure to deny the disqualification, and his failure to give evidence. They were therefore entitled to find that the identity requirement was proved.

4. For the specimen offence, the prosecution bore the burden of negativing reasonable excuse. Following Rowland v Thorpe, the court had to consider all the circumstances, including the explanation advanced and the appellant’s conduct. The officer’s earlier acceptance of asthma was based solely on the appellant’s account and did not prevent the magistrates from considering his later refusal to provide blood and concluding that he had no intention of providing any specimen.

High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by way of Case Stated from convictions by Leeds Magistrates’ Court, answered both stated questions Yes and dismissed the appeal.