Bielecki v The Director of Public Prosecutions (includes ruling)

A magistrates’ court may infer that a non-English-speaking suspect understood a requirement and warning given through an accredited interpreter. The prosecution must prove that the statutory warning was given in a language the suspect understood. Direct evidence from the interpreter is not indispensable where the accepted evidence and surrounding circumstances support the inference beyond reasonable doubt. The inference is evidential, not presumptive. The court’s conclusion remains fact-specific. A failure to give the statutory warning, including in an understandable language, is fatal to a conviction for failing to provide the specimen.

The appellant was convicted by Feltham Magistrates’ Court of failing to provide breath specimens, contrary to Road Traffic Act 1988, section 7(6). He spoke and understood very little English. An accredited Polish interpreter was present when a police sergeant required specimens and warned him of the consequences of non-compliance, but the interpreter was not called at trial.

The magistrates found that the requirement and warning had been made, accurately translated and understood, and that there was no reasonable excuse. On a case stated, the appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The court also refused an application to re-list the appeal before a two-judge Divisional Court and later refused certification under section 1(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.

1. Appeal dismissed. The three questions in the case stated were answered in the affirmative. The magistrates were entitled to uphold the conviction and find that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for failing to provide the specimens.
2. Under section 7(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a person required to provide a specimen must be warned that failure may lead to prosecution. Failure to give that warning, or to give it to a non-English-speaking suspect in a language he understands, is fatal.
3. The magistrates had accepted the police evidence that the requests were made in English and that the accredited interpreter translated them. They were entitled to infer that the translation was accurate and that the appellant understood both the requirement and the consequences of non-compliance. Relevant circumstances included the interpreter’s accreditation, the absence of any evidence that the interpreter reported a failure of understanding, the officers’ apparent understanding of the interpreter, and other evidence indicating that the appellant understood what was happening.
4. The inference involved common-sense reasoning from accepted evidence. It did not create a factual presumption and did not require direct confirmation from the interpreter. Scott v Baker was materially different because it concerned a factual presumption about approval of a police device.
5. R v Attard did not prevent the inference. Its ruling concerned evidence of a police interview conducted through an interpreter in materially different circumstances and did not negate the possibility of drawing an inference where the evidence supported it.
6. The decision was fact-specific and was not considered to raise a point of general public importance. The subsequent application for certification under section 1(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 was refused.

1. Feltham Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant on 30 September 2009 of failing to provide breath specimens.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): on a case stated, dismissed the appeal and answered all three questions in the affirmative: [2011] EWHC 2245 (Admin).
3. High Court (Administrative Court): on 10 October 2011, refused certification under section 1(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960; an application for Supreme Court leave therefore did not arise.