Director of Public Prosecutions v Parker

A conviction of a person other than the accused is admissible under section 74 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to prove that person committed the offence. Under section 74(2), proof of the conviction raises a presumption that the convicted person committed it, unless the contrary is proved. A conviction for unlawfully taking a vehicle therefore provides prima facie evidence that it was taken without the owner’s consent. The absence of the owner as a witness does not prevent a case to answer where the conviction supplies that evidence. Speculation about reasons for a guilty plea cannot justify withdrawing the case from the tribunal of fact.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated from the East Hertfordshire Magistrates’ decision of 31 August 2005. The magistrates dismissed a charge under section 12 of the Theft Act 1968 against the respondent, who had been a passenger in a vehicle driven by a 15-year-old, ruling that there was no case to answer.

The prosecution relied on the driver’s memorandum of conviction for unlawfully taking the vehicle without the owner’s consent or other lawful authority. No statement from the owner had been produced. The central question was whether that memorandum was sufficient evidence to raise a prima facie case that the vehicle had been taken without consent.

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates had erred in law by ruling that there was no case to answer. The matter was to proceed before the magistrates on the basis that the conviction raised prima facie evidence that the vehicle had been taken without consent.
2. Section 74 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 expressly makes a conviction of a person other than the accused admissible to prove that person committed the offence, where evidence of that commission is admissible. No objection to admissibility had been taken before the magistrates. The issue was therefore the effect of the conviction, not whether it could be admitted.
3. Under section 74(2), a person proved to have been convicted is taken to have committed the offence unless the contrary is proved. A conviction for unlawfully taking a vehicle without consent necessarily raises prima facie evidence of the absence of consent. It was consequently unnecessary for the prosecution to call the vehicle’s owner in order to establish a case to answer.
4. The possibility that the driver might have pleaded guilty for some reason inconsistent with guilt was wholly speculative. Although the prosecution could have called the owner, the owner’s absence was not fatal to the case.

Lord Justice Scott Baker agreed with the judgment of Mr Justice Leveson.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On appeal by way of case stated, the court held that the memorandum of conviction was sufficient to raise a prima facie case and directed that the proceedings continue before the magistrates.
• East Hertfordshire Magistrates: On 31 August 2005, dismissed the charge under section 12 of the Theft Act 1968, ruling that there was no case to answer.