Page v Gateshead Council

On an appeal by way of case stated, the reviewing court cannot consider evidence that was not before the magistrates. Where material evidence was available at the original hearing but was not admitted or considered, the interests of justice may require the issue to be remitted to the magistrates for fresh consideration. The court may remit the matter to the same bench where appropriate. A party receiving a further opportunity to have the issue determined may be refused costs, resulting in no order as to costs.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against the magistrates’ dismissal of an information alleging use of a motor vehicle without the insurance or security required by Part 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, contrary to section 143. The claimant had separately been convicted of plying for hire without a licence under section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847; that conviction was not appealed.

The magistrates had considered a certificate of insurance and evidence from an insurer’s former divisional director, but had not considered the policy itself. A policy was available and the parties agreed that it had not been adduced in evidence. The central issue was whether the insurance question should be remitted for reconsideration.

1. The appeal by way of case stated was disposed of by remitting the issue of insurance, and the information alleging absence of insurance cover, to the same bench of magistrates for fresh consideration. The magistrates were to consider the policy of insurance, with the claimant and the Council represented before them.

2. The court could not consider the policy as new evidence on the case-stated appeal. The proper course was instead to remit the issue because the policy had been available at the original hearing but had not been adduced in evidence, and the parties agreed that the magistrates should reconsider the matter.

3. The remittal required the magistrates to reconsider afresh the issue of insurance and the information relating to it. The direction disposed of the case stated presently before the court.

4. The claimant’s application for costs was refused. The court considered that he was being given a further opportunity to have the matter determined, and therefore made no order as to costs.

• Gateshead Magistrates’ Court dismissed the information alleging use of a motor vehicle without the insurance or security required by Part 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, contrary to section 143. The claimant was convicted on a separate plying-for-hire allegation, which was not appealed.
• High Court (Administrative Court) remitted the insurance issue and information to the same bench of magistrates for fresh consideration. There was no order as to costs.