Wood v Director of Public Prosecutions

For the purposes of section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, a statement means the written assertions of fact made by the person who signed it, rather than the document considered as a whole. A served copy need not reproduce every formal feature of the original where its substantive wording is identical and the absence of a signature causes no uncertainty or prejudice. A declaration is not invalid merely because it inaccurately identifies the number of pages, provided it is clear which statement the declaration certifies.

The appellant was convicted after a District Judge accepted a police officer’s section 9 statement concerning the calibration and use of a Police Pilot device measuring the appellant’s speed. The appellant appealed by way of case stated.

He argued that the copy statement served before trial was unsigned and therefore was not a copy of the signed statement admitted in evidence. He also argued that the statutory declaration referred to two pages when the statement contained three. The central questions were whether either defect prevented admissibility under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

1. Appeal rejected. The District Judge was entitled to admit the statement in evidence.

2. Section 9 refers to the written assertions of fact made by the person who signed the statement. It does not require service of an identical copy of the entire document in every formal respect. The served document contained words identical to those in the document admitted at trial, apart from an immaterial difference in date.

3. Applying Chief Constable of Surrey v Wickins [1985] RTR 277 at page 281F, the unsigned served document was plainly a copy of the signed statement. The absence of a signature on the served copy was therefore immaterial. There had been no breach of section 9, so the District Judge did not need to consider whether any technical breach caused prejudice.

4. The additional point concerning the reference to two rather than three pages also failed. Section 9(2)(b) required a declaration that the statement was true to the maker’s knowledge and belief. The declaration clearly referred to the statement contained in the three-page document, and there was no uncertainty about the statement being certified.

5. Paterson v Director of Public Prosecutions [1990] RTR 329 did not assist the appellant. That case concerned defects which meant that the statutory conditions were not satisfied. The present declaration contained the required substance, and the mistaken page count did not undermine its validity. The appeal was rejected.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated from the District Judge was rejected.