Valiati v Director Of Public Prosecutions

Information supplied for criminal case management identifies the issues and assists efficient trial preparation. It is not thereby evidence against the defendant. A court must not use PET or equivalent case-management information to fill gaps in the prosecution evidence unless it has been formally admitted or an appropriate application has been made. Any hearsay route and the discretion under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 78, must be addressed.

Case-management information may prevent ambushes and support appropriate admissions, provided the parties comply with the letter and spirit of the Criminal Procedure Rules and relevant Practice Directions. It cannot replace required witnesses, formal admissions or evidence of matters which the prosecution must prove.

These were two appeals by way of case stated concerning the use of information recorded in preparation for effective trial forms. In Valiati v Director of Public Prosecutions, the magistrates relied on PET entries indicating presence and identification when convicting despite the absence of the complainant and specific identification evidence.

In the appeal concerning KM, the magistrates referred to the PET form after the prosecution had failed to produce the interview and required police witnesses. The central questions were whether the forms could be relied on without being admitted in evidence, and whether they could supply or confirm matters missing from the prosecution case.

1. Appeals allowed. The magistrates in both cases were wrong to rely on PET-form information in the circumstances presented.
2. The Criminal Procedure Rules require active case management and early identification of the real issues. A defendant may indicate that the prosecution is put to proof without presenting a positive case. Properly completed case-management information can lead to formal admissions and may assist in preventing ambushes.
3. Following R v Newell [2012] EWCA Crim 650, information on a PET or comparable form is not automatically inadmissible. However, where it is sought to be used as evidence against the defendant, a formal application must be made. The court must determine any hearsay issue and the discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
4. The magistrates in Valiati had confused case-management information with evidence. The relevant entries were neither formal admissions under section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 nor properly adduced hearsay evidence. The answers to both questions in that case were therefore negative.
5. In KM, the PET form could not be used to close evidential gaps caused by the prosecution’s failure to produce the interview or required police witnesses. The prosecution had to proceed on evidence called or properly placed before the court. On that evidence there was insufficient identification to establish a case to answer.
6. The Criminal Practice Directions are binding on the courts to which they are directed. Compliance would have clarified the issues and might have resulted in formal admissions or effective arrangements for missing evidence. The appeals were accordingly allowed.

The judgment records appeals by way of case stated from magistrates’ courts in two criminal proceedings. The High Court allowed both appeals and answered the material questions in the negative.