Idrees v Director of Public Prosecutions

At the close of the prosecution case, the question is whether there is sufficient evidence on which a properly directed court could convict. Magistrates may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and are not required to entertain wholly fanciful possibilities. Where the evidence indicates that an impersonated person was the only person likely to benefit from the alleged conduct, and other circumstances materially support that inference, the evidence may be overwhelming and sufficient to establish a case to answer.

The appellant was convicted by justices in Luton of fraud contrary to sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. The prosecution alleged that an unidentified person had impersonated the appellant to take a theory driving test for his benefit.

The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that, at the close of the prosecution case, there was insufficient evidence connecting him with the impersonation. The justices rejected the submission of no case to answer, and the central issue on appeal was whether there was sufficient evidence on which a properly directed court could convict.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court answered yes to the stated question: there was sufficient evidence at the close of the prosecution case for a properly directed court to convict.
2. The magistrates were entitled to focus on the fact that the only person who could sensibly benefit from the unknown person's attempt to impersonate the appellant was the appellant himself. The possibility that a third party had arranged the impersonation out of sympathy, without the appellant's knowledge, was wholly fanciful and did not require consideration.
3. The surrounding circumstances materially strengthened the inference. The appellant had failed fifteen previous theory tests, all booked in Urdu. The disputed test was booked in English, and confirmation of the date, time and location had been sent to him. The booking used another person's credit card and a contact number not belonging to the appellant, but the number had a Luton dialling code.
4. The magistrates were required to confine their factual deliberations to possibilities that were not fanciful. On the evidence, any contrary view would have been perverse. The court observed that the justices should have refused to state a case unless ordered by the Administrative Court.
5. No costs order was made because the wording of the appropriate order was not available and the issue was effectively academic.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Luton justices' decision of 7 May 2010 was dismissed.