Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Chorley Justices & Anor

Magistrates must state a case where the proposed question involves the interaction between established facts and statutory provisions. Such a question is not frivolous merely because it also involves factual findings. The High Court may determine the issue itself only where the necessary findings are sufficiently clear. Where material findings are absent, the case must be stated so that the factual and legal issues can be resolved properly.

Criminal Procedure Rules require active case management and early identification of the real issues. Parties should identify disputed matters and necessary witnesses at the earliest hearing. A defendant should not gain an advantage by withholding issues until trial and then relying on an ambush or technical point.

Following a road accident, Andrew Forrest was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol. The prosecution relied on an analyst’s certificate under the Road Traffic Act 1988. The magistrates accepted that the certificate had been sent, but upheld a submission that it was inadmissible because the envelope was incorrectly addressed.

The magistrates refused to state a case, treating the issue as a question of fact and considering the application frivolous. The Director of Public Prosecutions applied to the Divisional Court for an order requiring a case to be stated. The central issues were whether the magistrates had identified the necessary facts and whether the interaction between the statutory service provisions and those facts raised a question of law.

1. Application granted. The magistrates were directed to state a case. The refusal was plainly wrong because the proposed question involved the interaction between the facts found and the statutory provisions governing service and admissibility.
2. Under sections 16(1), 16(3), 16(4) and 16(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, an analyst’s certificate may be used subject to statutory service requirements. Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1988 provides the relevant deeming rule where service by post is authorised. The court did not finally determine whether service had been effective.
3. The magistrates had not found whether the package received by Mr Forrest contained the analyst’s certificate. That missing finding meant that the High Court could not determine the matter under the procedure described in SunWorld Ltd v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham. The issue had to be remitted for proper factual findings.
4. The court emphasised the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Rules. The court must actively manage the case, identify the real issues early, and ensure that witnesses are called only where their evidence is relevant. Participants must comply with the overriding objective and disclose significant procedural failures.
5. A defendant who refuses at an early stage to identify the issues cannot later obtain an advantage by ambushing the prosecution with a technical point. In an appropriate case, the justices should consider an adjournment so that the real issue can be identified and fairly determined. These observations were guidance for future cases and did not determine the statutory issue in this case.
6. The application had been resisted by Mr Forrest. He was ordered to pay the full costs of the proceedings.

• Chorley Magistrates’ Court: upheld a submission of no case to answer based on alleged non-service of the analyst’s certificate.
• Chorley Justices: refused to state a case, treating the issue as factual and the application as frivolous.
• High Court (Administrative Court): directed the justices to state a case and ordered Mr Forrest to pay the costs.