Rockall v Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

On an application to amend a case stated, the court asks whether the proposed questions disclose an arguable error of law. A challenge to factual findings based on irrationality faces a high threshold, even at the arguability stage. A Crown Court’s reasons need not address every evidential detail. They must show that the main contentious issues were identified and how they were resolved. A conclusion that a witness was mistaken may properly be drawn from the evidence as a whole, including documentary inconsistencies and the inherent improbability of the witness’s account. Judicial reasoning arising naturally from an issue fairly before the parties does not become unfair merely because the precise point was not put in cross-examination.

The claimant had been convicted by Lowestoft Magistrates’ Court of felling trees without a licence, contrary to section 17 of the Forestry Act 1967. The Ipswich Crown Court dismissed his appeal on 29 August 2007.

The claimant sought an order requiring the Crown Court judge to amend the case stated to address two questions concerning whether the Forestry Commission had received notice of the alleged offence before the statutory time limit and whether the Crown Court’s reasons were adequate. The central issues were whether the Crown Court’s factual conclusion was arguably irrational and whether its reasons disclosed an arguable error of law.

1. Application dismissed. There was no basis for requiring the case stated to be amended. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of £1,660.
2. The ultimate test for irrationality in reviewing a factual conclusion is high. That threshold affects what must be shown to establish an arguable error at the preliminary stage. On the competing evidence, the Crown Court was rationally entitled to prefer the Forestry Commission officer’s evidence and documentation over the claimant’s evidence and the estate diary.
3. The Crown Court was entitled to infer that the claimant’s principal supporting witness was mistaken. The witness’s delay in contacting the Forestry Commission, despite his instructions and opportunity to do so, was a legitimate matter arising from the evidence. The conclusion did not depend on an unfair accusation of dishonesty.
4. Reasons must be sufficient to demonstrate that the court identified the main contentious issues and how it resolved them. The required level of detail depends on the circumstances. A fuller explanation might have been desirable, but the Crown Court’s reasons made clear that it accepted the officer’s evidence, supported by her documentation, and rejected the competing recollections as mistaken.
5. The reasoning was not legally inadequate merely because it did not deal expressly with every point or because the court’s reasoning could be criticised for lack of fullness. Nor was it unfair to rely on an evident inference from the evidence where the issue was fairly before the defendant and formed part of the reasons challenge.

The judgment records that the claimant had been convicted by Lowestoft Magistrates’ Court and that the Ipswich Crown Court dismissed his appeal on 29 August 2007. The present application to amend the case stated was dismissed by the Divisional Court.