Filmer v Director of Public Prosecutions

In a summary criminal trial, the prosecution must disclose its case in sufficient detail to enable the defendant to prepare a fair defence. The obligation is fact-dependent. It does not require every possible question, refinement or example of the evidence to be identified in advance. Disclosure is sufficient where it reveals the essential nature of the case, including the issue the defendant must meet.

A magistrates’ court need not give an elaborate judgment. Its reasons are sufficient if they identify the basis of conviction and make the material findings and reasons clear and comprehensible. The court may accept a witness’s evidence over the defendant’s without addressing every conflict or evidential detail.

David Filmer appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by Reading Magistrates’ Court for driving with excess alcohol in a public place, contrary to section 5(1)(A) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The vehicle had been driven on a privately owned tyre-centre forecourt.

The magistrates found that the forecourt was a public place because members of the public used it for parking, turning vehicles and pedestrian access. They refused an adjournment sought after prosecution evidence had supplied further detail about that use, and convicted the appellant.

The Divisional Court considered whether the refusal to adjourn was proper and whether the magistrates’ acceptance of the evidence that the forecourt was a public place was Wednesbury unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed. The court answered “Yes” to the first question and “No” to the second.

1. Disclosure and fair trial. In summary-only proceedings, the prosecution must disclose its case in sufficient detail before trial to enable proper preparation. The extent of disclosure depends on the evidence and issues. The obligation is not an inflexible standard requiring every detail of the prosecution evidence to be served in advance.
2. The appellant knew that the central issue was whether the forecourt was a public place. The disclosed statement described it as an open tarmac area accessible to vehicles at two points, with a wall partially across the front. That revealed the essential nature of the prosecution case: that the public had access to or used the area. The further evidence describing examples of public use did not amount to prosecution by ambush.
3. The prosecution is not confined at trial to the precise wording of disclosed statements or documents. It may ask supplementary questions and explore disclosed issues in greater detail, provided the requirements of fairness and natural justice are respected. Those requirements were satisfied here. The distinction between private land to which the public has access and private land closed to the public was material under the authorities concerning the statutory context.
4. Reasons of magistrates. A magistrates’ court need not provide an elaborate judgment analysing every evidential conflict. It must give sufficient reasons to make clear why the defendant was convicted. The magistrates had summarised the relevant evidence, explained that they accepted the prosecution witness’s account, and made findings sufficient to sustain the conviction.
5. The evidence justified the conclusion that the forecourt was a public place for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The conviction stood. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of £300, payable at the same rate as the magistrates’ court fine and other financial orders. The stay on disqualification ceased forthwith.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal by way of case stated from Reading Magistrates’ Court was dismissed. The court answered the first certified question in the affirmative and the second in the negative.