Central Bedfordshire Council v Shah

On an appeal by case stated, the High Court may intervene where the magistrates have made a finding for which there was no evidence, or where their reasoning is perverse. It must not intervene merely because the evidence could have been assessed differently or because a finding was against the weight of the evidence. Where magistrates expressly state that there was no evidence of a material fact, the court should not rewrite or qualify that reason by inference. If the stated reason disregards evidence which was plainly before the court, the proper conclusion may be that the magistrates failed to address the issue and that their reasoning was legally erroneous. The case may then be remitted for retrial without the appellate court prejudging the merits.

Central Bedfordshire Council appealed by case stated against the acquittal of Tasir Hussain Shah by Luton and South Bedfordshire Magistrates’ Court. Mr Shah had been charged under section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 with plying for hire without a licence.

The magistrates accepted that Mr Shah had been at Court Drive earlier in the evening and had later collected a booked passenger. They stated, among other things, that there was no evidence that he had been at Court Drive at the relevant time. The case stated asked whether they were entitled to find that there was insufficient evidence to convict.

1. Appeal allowed. The appeal by case stated was allowed and the matter was remitted to the magistrates’ court for retrial.
2. An appeal by case stated raises an error of law where the magistrates make a finding for which there is no evidence. It also raises an error of law where no reasonable bench could have reached the finding, amounting to an ultra vires or perverse decision. By contrast, the weight to be given to evidence is ordinarily for the magistrates. The appellate procedure is not appropriate merely because a party considers that an evidential finding should have been different: Bracegirdle v Oxley [1947] KB 349; Oladimeji v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] EWHC 1199 (Admin).
3. The magistrates’ stated reason that there was no evidence that Mr Shah was at Court Drive at the relevant time could not be treated as meaning that the evidence was merely insufficient or unreliable. The reason was expressed without qualification. The case stated recorded evidence from the Trading Standards officers that they had flagged down Mr Shah’s vehicle and had been taken to another location. That evidence was directly relevant to the issue. The magistrates therefore appeared to have disregarded evidence before them and failed to apply their minds to the proper questions. Their reasoning was perverse.
4. The court did not need to resolve competing arguments about the accuracy of the recorded timings or the journey duration. The retrial was not to be prejudiced by anything said in the judgment. The Council’s costs were ordered to be paid out of central funds.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the Council’s appeal by case stated against the acquittal and remitted the case to the magistrates’ court for retrial.
• Luton and South Bedfordshire Magistrates’ Court: acquitted Mr Shah on 22 May 2012. The magistrates’ clerk accepted that the stated reasons were extremely limited and did not justify the decision.