Oladimeji v Director of Public Prosecutions

On an appeal by case stated, the High Court determines whether the magistrates’ decision was wrong in law or exceeded their jurisdiction. The case must contain clear findings of fact and identify genuine questions of law. It should contain evidence only where the sufficiency of evidence is challenged.

The weight of evidence and the credibility of witnesses are matters for the magistrates. A factual finding gives rise to an error of law where it has no evidential basis or no reasonable bench could have reached it. A contention that a supported finding was merely against the weight of evidence belongs in an appeal to the Crown Court.

A finding that a defendant lacked a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath specimen may therefore be upheld where it was reasonably open on the evidence and was not perverse.

The appellant appealed by case stated against his conviction by the South West London Justices for failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide a specimen of breath contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He had provided one specimen at the police station but failed to provide a second. He relied upon a history of asthma and medical evidence concerning a possible narrowing of his airways.

The justices found no signs that the appellant had suffered an asthma attack or other medical condition which prevented him from providing the second specimen. The questions stated concerned the medical evidence, the relevance of his general practitioner’s evidence and his credibility. The central issue was whether those questions raised errors of law and whether the finding that he lacked a reasonable excuse was properly open to the justices.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Lord Justice Keene held that the justices were entitled to find that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for failing to provide the second breath specimen. Their conclusion was not perverse and fell within the range of conclusions properly open on the evidence. Mr Justice Jack agreed.

2. Under section 111(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, the High Court’s function on an appeal by case stated is to decide whether the magistrates’ decision was wrong in law or exceeded their jurisdiction. Rule 64.6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 accordingly requires a case stated to set out the facts found and the questions of law or jurisdiction. Evidence should be included only where the question is whether a finding had evidential support.

3. A case stated should clearly separate the evidence from the findings of fact and should identify genuine questions of law. The magistrates should decline to state questions which concern only factual evaluation. The weight given to evidence is for the magistrates. A factual finding amounts to an error of law where there is no evidence supporting it or where no reasonable bench could have reached it. A challenge asserting only that a supported finding was against the weight of evidence should proceed by appeal to the Crown Court.

4. The questions concerning the degree of agreement between the medical experts and the relevance of the general practitioner’s evidence raised matters of fact rather than law. The justices could find that the appellant was not suffering from an asthma attack, narrowing of the airways or any other medical condition which prevented him from providing the specimen. Relevant matters included his successful earlier specimens, the absence of a contemporaneous medical explanation or coughing, his lack of recent asthma problems and the absence of concern about his breathing one week earlier.

5. Credibility is primarily for the trial court, which has seen and heard the witnesses. The officers’ written statements were admitted without any notice requiring their attendance. The justices were entitled to prefer their account and to consider the conflicts with that account when assessing the appellant’s credibility.

6. Mr Justice Jack added that magistrates should examine proposed questions before adopting them in a case stated. The defective questions in this case demonstrated the danger of accepting a requesting party’s formulation without checking whether it raised questions of law.

1. High Court, Divisional Court: The appeal by case stated was dismissed. The court held that the justices’ findings were properly open to them and disclosed no error of law.

2. South West London Justices: The appellant was convicted on 2 November 2005 of failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide a specimen of breath contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.