Bull v Northampton Justices

Where a magistrates’ court changes or widens the factual basis on which it is considering a criminal charge, it must make the proposed basis clear to the defendant and allow the defendant and advisers a proper opportunity to address it. A conviction cannot stand where procedural errors prevent the defence from responding to the issues that determine guilt. An appellate court may remit for a fresh hearing where delay has not made further proceedings unjust, including where delay resulted from the appellant’s chosen appeal route.

The claimant was convicted by magistrates of driving without due care and attention following a fatal collision. The trial was initially presented as turning principally on the traffic-light sequence. After the prosecution evidence had been given, further expert evidence was introduced concerning the deceased pedestrian’s movements and the visibility of the pedestrian. The magistrates convicted despite finding that the prosecution had not proved the colour of the lights beyond reasonable doubt.

The claimant challenged the conviction by judicial review after the magistrates refused to state a case. A case was subsequently stated, and the Divisional Court treated the matter in substance as an appeal by way of case stated. The central issue was whether the trial process was sufficiently fair and reasoned to support the conviction, and whether the matter should be remitted for rehearing.

1. Conviction quashed. The trial process was unsatisfactory because the factual inquiry widened after the experts had been released and the prosecution introduced a different evidential basis for alleging careless driving. The magistrates did not clearly identify to the defendant the alternative factual and legal bases they were considering.
2. The magistrates were entitled to consider all the evidence and possible bases for guilt. However, procedural fairness required them to explain those bases clearly so that the defendant and his advisers could respond. That did not occur. The magistrates’ reasons also failed to make a clear finding about whether the deceased crossed from the right or the left, or to explain adequately how the alternative factual possibility established the offence.
3. The court declined to reconstruct a fair trial from a record affected by multiple errors and misjudgments. The conviction therefore had to be quashed.
4. The proceedings were remitted for a fresh hearing if the prosecution wished to proceed. The delay was not sufficient to justify stopping the case, particularly as the substantial delay resulted from the claimant’s choice to pursue a case stated rather than an appeal to the Crown Court by way of rehearing.
5. Lord Justice Leveson agreed and emphasised that appeals by case stated carry particular risks where factual issues, rather than a pure issue of law, are involved. The purpose of the appellate system is to secure a just result for all litigants.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court treated the matter in substance as an appeal by way of case stated, following the grant of permission to challenge the magistrates’ refusal to state a case. The conviction was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh hearing if required.