Fernie v Chief Constable of Humberside Police

An appeal on a case stated must identify clear points of law. Findings of fact made by the Crown Court cannot ordinarily be challenged in the Divisional Court. A trial judge may permit a defendant’s expert to put questions to another expert where the defendant consents and remains able to ask further questions. That arrangement does not necessarily make the expert an advocate or deprive the court of independent expert assistance. An expert involved in designing or manufacturing equipment is not automatically disqualified from explaining its operation or expressing an opinion about its reliability. The court may evaluate the expert evidence, including any alleged interest or lack of independence.

The claimant was convicted by magistrates of speeding and of failing to provide information identifying the driver. The Crown Court dismissed his appeal. The Crown Court then stated a case concerning alleged procedural unfairness, the treatment of expert evidence, restrictions on cross-examination, and the exclusion of evidence about road markings.

The claimant sought repeated adjournments before the Divisional Court but did not attend the hearing. The court nevertheless invited counsel for the Chief Constable to present the case that could best be advanced on his behalf. The central issues were whether the Crown Court had denied a fair opportunity to present and challenge evidence, and whether it had improperly relied on evidence from an expert connected with the equipment used to measure speed.

The appeal was dismissed. The respondent was awarded the costs of the appeal.

1. Case stated. The grounds did not identify clear points of law for the Divisional Court. They were expressed largely as complaints about the conduct of the Crown Court hearing and its evaluation of evidence. The court nevertheless considered the grounds because the Crown Court judge had supplied answers and a judgment.
2. Findings of fact. The Crown Court had found that the relevant equipment was properly set up and that the necessary checks had been carried out. It had also found that the claimant was not prevented from raising the issues he wished to raise. Those findings could not be challenged in this appeal merely because the claimant disagreed with them.
3. Expert evidence and cross-examination. The judge permitted the claimant’s expert to put questions to the respondent’s expert, while allowing the claimant to ask further questions himself. The claimant agreed to that course. The arrangement was a sensible means of exploring technically difficult evidence and did not require the claimant’s expert to act as an advocate. It was lawful provided that the trial judge understood the expert’s limited role. Nothing suggested that the judge misunderstood it or prevented the claimant from adducing evidence or asking questions.
4. Alleged expert bias. An expert who developed or manufactured equipment used in criminal investigations may properly be called to explain the technique and its operation. Such a relationship did not, without more, establish disqualifying bias. The court was entitled to evaluate the competing expert evidence and found no basis for the complaint.
5. The remaining complaint concerning road markings was answered by the Crown Court’s finding that both sides had agreed the issue was irrelevant. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

1. Crown Court at Hull: dismissed the claimant’s appeal against convictions entered by the magistrates.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal on the case stated and ordered the respondent’s costs.