Miller v Director of Public Prosecutions

A breach of the requirement to summon an appropriate adult may materially affect the fairness of admitting evidence, particularly where the defendant is vulnerable and faces prosecution for refusing to provide a specimen. The court must consider the protective purpose of the safeguard, including the possibility that an appropriate adult could calm the detainee, explain the request and clarify the consequences of refusal. The urgency of obtaining a specimen does not justify treating the safeguard as immaterial. A magistrates’ court must exercise its discretion under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 78, on the evidence and reasons properly relevant to admissibility. It must not admit prosecution evidence merely because it may assist the defence or because exclusion would leave no case to answer.

The appellant was convicted by the Black Country Magistrates’ Court of failing to provide a blood specimen under section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He was a vulnerable adult known to have learning difficulties and autism. The police failed to inform or summon an appropriate adult despite Code C being engaged. The magistrates accepted that there was a breach but declined to exclude evidence of the drug-driving procedure under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The appeal by way of case stated concerned jurisdiction and timing, amendment of the case stated, and whether the magistrates had lawfully exercised their discretion to admit the evidence.

1. Jurisdiction and timing. The court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A challenge to an interlocutory ruling in criminal proceedings should generally await the final determination of the case and then be brought by case stated or other available appeal. The 21-day period under section 111(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 began on the final determination, namely sentence or other disposal, rather than when the interlocutory ruling was made. The application was therefore in time.
2. Case stated. The magistrates’ fuller written reasons were capable of amplifying their oral reasons within fair and reasonable limits. Remission for amendment was unnecessary.
3. Code C breach. It was common ground, and the court held, that the failure to inform and summon an appropriate adult breached Code C. The safeguard was especially important because the appellant was a vulnerable adult, was distressed and agitated, and faced a charge in which understanding both the request for a specimen and the consequences of refusal was material.
4. Section 78 discretion. The magistrates’ reliance on delay, practicality and a clinical assessment that no appropriate adult was necessary was misconceived. They failed to consider the possibility that an appropriate adult could calm the appellant and lead him to make a different choice. The distinction from R (Director of Public Prosecutions) v BE was material: in that case the defendant had freely provided a sample and the breach had no effect on the result, whereas here the breach could have affected whether a sample was provided at all. The possibility that the evidence might assist the defence was irrelevant to whether it was fair to admit it as prosecution evidence.
5. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the magistrates’ court with a direction to acquit, because the prosecution depended entirely on the excluded evidence.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — appeal by way of case stated allowed. The conviction was quashed and the matter remitted to the magistrates’ court with a direction to acquit.
• Black Country Magistrates’ Court — convicted the appellant after trial and imposed a fine, driving disqualification and costs.