Marsh v Director of Public Prosecutions

On an appeal by case stated, the court must have a full and accurate account of the proceedings and evidence relevant to the issue under appeal. Where the case stated omits material procedural history, particularly where separate proceedings may have been combined, the court should not determine an evidential admissibility issue on incomplete material. The appropriate course is to adjourn the appeal and require the magistrates to supplement the case stated.

Mr Ian Marsh appealed by case stated from his convictions by magistrates for driving with excess alcohol and driving without appropriate insurance. The central issue appeared to concern the identification of the driver and the admissibility of identification evidence under Code D and section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

It emerged at the hearing that the proceedings may have involved a co-defendant, Mr Hanson, and a combined trial or Newton hearing. That procedure, the evidence before the magistrates and the relevant procedural history were not recorded in the case stated. The issue was whether the appeal could safely be determined on that incomplete account.

1. The appeal was adjourned. The court was not prepared to determine the admissibility of the identification evidence on the present case stated.
2. The case stated gave an incomplete and potentially misleading account of the proceedings. It omitted the apparent involvement of Mr Hanson, the possible combined trial and Newton hearing, and uncertainty about the evidence given by the appellant and the co-defendant.
3. Although the principal issue might ultimately be whether the identification evidence was properly admitted under Code D and section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, that issue could not safely be resolved without knowing precisely what proceedings the magistrates had conducted and what evidence had been before them.
4. Determining an evidential admissibility issue without the full procedural history risked perpetrating an injustice. The magistrates were therefore directed to supplement the case stated with the procedural history of the cases against Mr Marsh and Mr Hanson and an account of the combined hearing.
5. A transcript of the clerk’s notes of evidence was also to be prepared and included.

• Magistrates’ court: On 18 and 19 January 2005, the justices convicted Mr Marsh of driving with excess alcohol and driving without appropriate insurance.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by case stated was adjourned. The justices were directed to supplement the case stated and provide the relevant procedural history and transcript of the clerk’s notes of evidence.