McCombie v Liverpool City Magistrates' Court

Conviction may properly rest on circumstantial evidence where the individual strands, considered cumulatively, establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is unnecessary for any single item of evidence to prove guilt independently. The court may also consider the implausibility of alternative explanations, provided the prosecution retains the burden of proof. On an appeal by way of case stated, the question is whether a reasonable bench, properly directing itself, could have reached the conclusion on the evidence.

The appellant faced four offences arising from a road traffic collision in which a pedestrian was seriously injured. The charge of driving with excess alcohol was dismissed, but he was convicted of driving without due care and attention, failing to stop, and failing to report the accident.

The convictions depended on circumstantial evidence identifying the appellant as the driver. The District Judge initially refused to state a case, but that refusal was quashed on judicial review on 2 November 2009. A case was subsequently stated. The central issue was whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable magistrates’ court, properly directed, to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had been driving.

1. The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The court answered the stated question in the affirmative.
2. The District Judge was entitled to assess the evidence cumulatively. The relevant circumstances included the timing of the appellant’s movements, the location and condition of his car, the keys, glass fragments on a jersey, the absence of a satisfactory explanation, and the improbability that Dr Newby had been the driver.
3. No individual item of evidence had to establish guilt by itself. Taken together, the evidence, including the implausibility of the alternative account, was capable of satisfying the criminal standard of proof.
4. The District Judge correctly recognised that the prosecution retained the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His observations about the appellant’s demeanour were not treated as adverse findings, but as relevant to the difficulty of assessing his credibility, particularly where his evidence differed from earlier statements.
5. The appropriate question on the case stated was whether a reasonable bench, properly directing itself, could have found beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was driving the car at the time of the collision. That threshold was met.
6. The respondent was awarded its costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. No order was made concerning the costs of the earlier judicial review.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): McCombie v Liverpool City Magistrates' Court, [2011] EWHC 758 (Admin). Appeal by way of case stated dismissed.
2. Judicial review: The District Judge’s refusal to state a case was quashed on 2 November 2009. The subsequent case was stated on 1 February 2010.
3. Liverpool Magistrates' Court: The appellant was convicted of driving without due care and attention, failing to stop after the accident, and failing to report it. The excess-alcohol charge was dismissed.