Tinnion v Reading Crown Court

A failure to give notice of proposed alibi evidence does not make the evidence inadmissible. The proper consequences are adverse comment, cross-examination and any proper inference. A court must also avoid deciding witness credibility before hearing all admissible evidence. Where the prosecution can be allowed a short opportunity to investigate late evidence without aborting the hearing, exclusion of that evidence is not justified on that basis.

The claimant was convicted of dangerous driving in the Maidenhead Youth Court. On appeal to the Crown Court, he sought to call two witnesses in support of his account that he had been elsewhere when the offence occurred. The Recorder refused to hear them because they had not previously been identified and the prosecution had no prior notice of the proposed alibi evidence. The Crown Court dismissed the appeal and refused to state a case under Supreme Court Act 1981, section 28.

The claimant sought judicial review of both decisions. The central issues were whether the evidence was properly excluded and whether the Crown Court had lawfully refused to state a case.

1. The judicial review claim succeeded. The Crown Court’s decision excluding the two witnesses and dismissing the appeal was quashed. The appeal was directed to be reheard before a different judge and different justices.
2. Even if the claimant had been required to provide details of his alibi witnesses under section 11 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, non-compliance would not make the evidence inadmissible. The statutory consequences are adverse comment, cross-examination and any proper inference. The Recorder therefore had no proper basis for excluding the evidence altogether.
3. The Recorder’s reliance on the perceived credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the claimant was manifestly unsound. A fact-finding court cannot finally determine credibility before hearing all the admissible evidence relevant to that issue.
4. The Recorder also wrongly treated the prosecution’s requested checks as requiring the hearing to be aborted. The prosecution had sought only a short period to investigate the witnesses, while keeping them available for further cross-examination.
5. The claimant had not been subject to the compulsory defence-statement procedure in the Youth Court. The applicable regime was the voluntary procedure under section 6 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
6. There was no practical benefit in ordering the Crown Court to state a case because its reasons were already set out in writing. The Youth Court conviction was not quashed, since no irregularity in that court had been established. A defendant’s costs order was made.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Crown Court’s refusal to admit the witnesses and dismissal of the appeal were quashed. The appeal was remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted court.
• Reading Crown Court: The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the Crown Court refused to state a case.
• Maidenhead Youth Court: The claimant was convicted of dangerous driving.