Weightman v Director of Public Prosecutions

On an appeal by way of case stated, a Crown Court must give sufficient reasons for rejecting a statutory defence. At minimum, the appellant must be able to identify the evidence accepted and understand why the defence failed. A bare conclusion that the appellant was not credible or had not exercised reasonable diligence is inadequate where the court does not disclose which evidence it rejected or what legal assessment it made. Failure to give adequate reasons is an error of law. A decision may also be unreasonable where the stated findings do not provide an evidential basis for the conclusion. Where the defects cannot fairly be cured and further litigation would not be in the public interest, the appellate court may allow the appeal, quash the conviction and decline to remit the matter for rehearing.

Brian Weightman appealed by way of case stated against the dismissal by Chelmsford Crown Court of his appeal from conviction by Essex Magistrates’ Court. He had been convicted under section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for failing to identify the driver of his car.

He relied on the statutory defence in section 172(4), asserting that he did not know who was driving and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained the driver’s identity. The Crown Court recorded that it did not find him credible and was not satisfied that he had exercised reasonable diligence, but did not explain which evidence it rejected or why. The central issues were whether the Crown Court had given adequate reasons and whether its decision was unreasonable on the facts stated.

1. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. The matter was not remitted to the Crown Court because the alleged offence had occurred almost three years earlier and prolonging the litigation was not in the public interest.
2. The Crown Court’s oral reasons were legally inadequate. On an appeal from justices, full judgment-level reasons are unnecessary, but the appellant is entitled to a clear statement of the evidence accepted. This principle, applied from Pullum v Crown Prosecution Service (unreported DC, 17 April 2000), was not satisfied.
3. The Crown Court merely stated that the appellant had failed to establish the statutory defence. It did not disclose whether it rejected his account that he had questioned potential drivers, considered that account insufficient to constitute reasonable diligence, or found that the enquiries were not made in good faith. The appellant therefore could not know why the defence had failed.
4. The case stated was also defective because it stopped before recording the material findings concerning reasonable diligence. The recorded facts supplied no evidential basis for the conclusion that the statutory defence had not been proved. The question posed by the Crown Court was therefore answered in the affirmative in the Wednesbury sense.
5. The absence of adequate reasons amounted to an error of law. The conviction was consequently quashed, with the defendant’s costs payable from Central Funds.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated allowed; conviction quashed under [2007] EWHC 634 (Admin).
• Chelmsford Crown Court: dismissed the appeal from the conviction by Essex Magistrates’ Court.
• Essex Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant of an offence under section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.