Wellington, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosectuions

Breaches of Code D do not automatically exclude identification evidence. Under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the court must assess their effect on fairness and may admit the evidence where admission remains fair. A standard Police National Computer record stating an alias may be admissible under section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where the supplying officers may reasonably be supposed to have personal knowledge of the entry. Routine alias information need not be excluded merely because the officer may not recall when it was supplied. Magistrates are not generally required to give a full judgment when convicting, provided they explain the substance of their decision sufficiently, including in the case stated where required. An appellate court should not depart from a longstanding High Court decision affecting magistrates’ practice merely because another view may be arguable.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from convictions by Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court for driving while disqualified, driving without insurance and wilfully obstructing a police officer. The prosecution relied on identification evidence from PC Leanne, notwithstanding admitted breaches of paragraphs 3.1 and 3.12 of Code D, and on a Police National Computer entry recording the appellant’s alias. The appellant challenged the admissibility and weight of that evidence, the sufficiency of the justices’ reasons and the sufficiency of the evidence overall. The central questions were whether the evidence was admissible and sufficient, and whether the justices had adequately explained their decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. All four questions in the case stated were answered yes.
2. The failures to record the driver’s description and to hold an identification parade were material breaches of Code D. Both breaches weighed against the prosecution. The failure to record the original description was the more serious breach, but the failure to hold a parade was less significant in circumstances where the witness had already identified the suspect from a slide. Under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the justices had to consider whether admission would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings. Their decision to admit PC Leanne’s evidence was within the permissible range of discretion.
3. The standard Police National Computer print-out was admissible under section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The circumstances supported the inference that the officers supplying the alias information had, or might reasonably be supposed to have had, personal knowledge of it. Routine alias information was not the kind of detail officers could reasonably be expected to remember for the purposes of section 117(5)(b). The reliability-direction power under section 117(7) was not engaged on the material before the justices, particularly as the accuracy and admissibility of the entry had not been disputed at trial.
4. The admission of the alias entry did not infringe article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The information was routine personal information properly contained in an official record and was not material of the kind to which that provision applied.
5. The justices were not required to deliver a full judgment when convicting. Their brief oral reasons, supplemented by the reasoning in the case stated, adequately explained why they accepted the identification evidence and convicted. The longstanding decision in R v Southend Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Rochford District Council should not be departed from at this level. The evidence, taken together, was sufficient to support the convictions.

• Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant on 20 July 2006 after admitting the identification evidence and relying on the Police National Computer alias entry.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and answered all four questions in the affirmative. Permission was given for written submissions concerning a possible question of public importance.