L v Director of Public Prosecutions

Where unchallenged evidence permits a straightforward inference that property seized from an accused was the property later positively identified by its owner, a court may draw that inference. A submission of no case to answer does not succeed merely because formal continuity evidence was absent, where the competing explanations are fanciful and lack an evidential foundation.

A criminal trial must be conducted fairly and consistently with the overriding objective. It is not a one-sided obstacle race.

The appellant appealed by case stated from the Sunderland Youth Court’s decision of 27 March 2008 convicting him of handling stolen goods.

A bicycle had been stolen from a shed. The appellant was later found pushing a bicycle matching its description, which the police seized. The owner’s son subsequently identified at the police station a bicycle bearing distinctive marks as his stolen bicycle. The evidence was admitted in written statements and the defence did not require the witnesses to attend.

The central issue was whether there was a case to answer despite no formal evidence expressly connecting the bicycle seized from the appellant with that shown to the owner’s son.

1. Appeal dismissed. It was open to the justices to find that there was a case to answer and to infer that the bicycle seized from the appellant was the bicycle later identified by its owner.

2. The agreed evidence established that a distinctive bicycle was stolen, that the appellant was found shortly afterwards pushing a bicycle fitting the description, that the bicycle was seized, and that the owner’s son positively identified a bicycle at the police station by its distinguishing marks. Although the evidence did not formally trace continuity after seizure, the inference of continuity was properly available.

3. The suggested alternatives—dishonesty by the police or owner, or a coincidental presence of an identical bicycle at the police station—were speculative and had no evidential foundation. The appellant’s spontaneous assertion that he had possessed the bicycle for a long time did not require the justices to accept such a scenario.

4. The court observed that a criminal trial must be conducted justly under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2003. Fairness requires both parties to prepare and conduct the case in accordance with that objective. A defence relying on a supposed break in continuity should require witnesses to attend if that line is to be investigated, rather than agree their written evidence and invite unsupported speculation.

5. As the answer to the first question in the case stated was affirmative, the remaining questions concerning adverse inferences from silence, failure to give evidence, and previous convictions did not require determination. The court also ordered continuing anonymity for the appellant and directed detailed assessment of his costs.

• Divisional Court: dismissed the appeal by case stated from the Sunderland Youth Court.
• Sunderland Youth Court: on 27 March 2008, convicted the appellant of handling stolen goods.