Rhodes-Presley, R (on the application of) v South Worcestershire Magistrates' Court

A criminal conviction cannot stand where the magistrates expressly state that guilt was determined on the balance of probabilities. The court may decline to grant further relief where the conviction has already been set aside, the prosecution authoritatively undertakes not to seek a retrial, and the prosecution will offer no evidence so that the case must be dismissed with a verdict of not guilty. In those circumstances, the judicial review may be dismissed with liberty to restore to ensure that the court’s intention is implemented.

The claimant was convicted by the defendant magistrates of minor criminal damage. In announcing their verdict, the magistrates stated that they found him guilty on the balance of probabilities. A proposed case stated was never signed and did not become a case stated.

The magistrates later used section 142 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 to set aside the conviction and ordered a retrial before a different bench. The claimant sought judicial review, including an order quashing the reopening decision, an order requiring a case to be stated, and an order quashing the conviction with a not guilty verdict. The central issue was whether any further order was necessary once the conviction had been set aside and the prosecution confirmed that it would not pursue a retrial.

1. The conviction could not stand. The magistrates’ statement that guilt had been determined on the balance of probabilities demonstrated an error in applying the criminal standard of proof.

2. The magistrates’ decision under section 142 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 to set aside the conviction was effective unless quashed. Accordingly, there was no conviction against the claimant at the time of the judicial review hearing.

3. The court did not determine the wider interaction between section 142 and the power to state a case. It observed that section 142 might properly have been used if exercised promptly, and that an extant request to state a case might in some circumstances become frivolous if the defendant had obtained all that could properly be achieved.

4. The Crown Prosecution Service gave an authoritative undertaking that it would not seek a retrial because prosecution was not in the public interest. The magistrates had no power to initiate a retrial of their own motion, and the section 142 order could not compel the Crown to prosecute.

5. The CPS would offer no evidence, requiring the magistrates to dismiss the case with a verdict of not guilty. Since no further order was required to give effect to that position, the applications were dismissed, with liberty to the claimant to restore the matter to work out the court’s manifest intentions. No order for costs was made, save for detailed assessment of the legal aid costs.

1. South Worcestershire Magistrates' Court: convicted the claimant after stating that guilt had been established on the balance of probabilities, then set aside the conviction under section 142 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 and ordered a retrial.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the judicial review applications with liberty to restore. The court accepted that the original conviction could not stand and recorded the CPS position that no retrial would be pursued.