Dodsworth v Crown Prosecution Service

A case stated appeal is confined by the questions stated and the factual foundation supplied by the lower court. The High Court will not determine an undeveloped challenge to the validity of subordinate legislation where the stated case does not identify the facts or issues necessary to resolve it. A magistrates’ court has no power under section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 after the Crown Court has determined an appeal against sentence or another order relating to the conviction. Where the questions stated are expressly linked to an abandoned ground of challenge, they must be answered on that basis. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant had pleaded guilty before the magistrates to possessing wild bird eggs. He later sought to challenge the validity of amendments made by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (England and Wales Amendments) Regulations 2004, including on consultation and other public-law grounds.

The Crown Court dealt with the appeal against sentence but did not determine the conviction issue. The magistrates subsequently stated a case containing questions about consultation, the validity of the Regulations, the legality of possessing eggs taken between 1954 and 1981, and acceptance of the guilty plea. By the hearing in the Administrative Court, the consultation ground had been abandoned, while other grounds had not been properly formulated or addressed in the stated case.

1. The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The questions had to be answered by reference to the case actually stated, rather than to wider arguments subsequently suggested by the appellant.

2. The court had jurisdiction to consider the case despite the apparent lateness of the application to state it. Section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 imposed a 21-day limit, but the Practice Direction to Order 52 did not make the High Court’s jurisdiction dependent on the magistrates’ court having acted within its powers when stating the case.

3. The magistrates’ court had no power under section 142 to reopen the conviction after the Crown Court had determined an appeal against a sentence or order imposed in respect of that conviction. The Criminal Procedure Rules also required an application to withdraw or change a guilty plea to be made promptly and before sentence or final disposal. No compliant written application had been made.

4. The case stated contained no adequate factual or analytical foundation for deciding the proposed challenges to the Regulations. It did not set out the rival positions on consultation or the matters necessary to determine whether the subordinate legislation was ultra vires. Those arguments therefore could not be determined in this appeal.

5. Questions 19(a), (b) and (c) were framed by reference to the abandoned consultation ground. Question 19(a) was therefore inapplicable; question 19(b) had to be answered “No”; and question 19(c) could only be answered “No” in the form stated. Question 19(d), concerning acceptance of the guilty plea, followed from those questions and had to be answered “Yes”. The court expressly left the appellant’s other possible public-law and human-rights arguments undecided.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — [2010] EWHC 3435 (Admin): appeal by way of case stated dismissed.
• Newcastle Crown Court — heard the appellant’s appeal against sentence on 18 January 2010 and substituted an absolute discharge. The conviction issue was not determined.
• Magistrates’ court — the appellant pleaded guilty on 14 September 2009. The district judge later stated a case concerning the validity of the statutory instrument and acceptance of the plea.