Stanesby v Director of Public Prosecutions

A breach of the applicable police Code of Practice does not automatically require the exclusion of evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Admissibility is fact-specific. The court must consider whether, having regard to all the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, admitting it would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings. Where the breach made no practical difference to the detainee’s understanding, participation or the reliability of the procedure, exclusion may be refused.

The appellant was convicted after a breath test showed alcohol exceeding the prescribed limit. He had told the custody sergeant that he was taking medication for depression. It was accepted that this triggered Code C:1.4 and required an appropriate adult to be summoned.

No appropriate adult attended. The Crown Court nevertheless found that the appellant understood the questions and requirements, that the breath test was properly administered in good faith, and that he provided the required specimens. It declined to exclude the evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The appellant appealed to the Administrative Court.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Crown Court was entitled to conclude that the breach of Code C:1.4 had caused no unfairness.
2. Whether evidence obtained following a breach of a Code of Practice should be admitted under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is a fact-specific question. Each case must be determined on its facts, as recognised in R v Gill and others [2004] EWCA Crim 3245.
3. The appropriate adult requirements existed to help secure compliance with the detainee’s rights, including the rights to be informed of the arrest, consult a solicitor privately, consult the Code, receive written information and obtain a copy of the custody record. Those protections were especially significant where a detainee might not understand the process or was being interviewed.
4. On the facts found, the appellant appeared coherent, understood the questions and requirements, and in fact confirmed that he understood them. The officers acted in good faith and the breath test was properly administered. An appropriate adult could not justifiably have interfered with that procedure.
5. The breach therefore made no difference. Admission of the breath-test result would not have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought to exclude it under section 78.
6. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and certification of the proposed questions were refused. The proposed issue concerning the effect of time and back calculation had not formed part of the judgment and did not arise. The proposed general question concerning section 78 involved well-trodden ground.

• Crown Court: admitted the breath-test evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 despite the breach of Code C:1.4.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal and refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and certification of the proposed questions.