Simon Wiltshire, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Bristol

A Crown Court hearing an appeal from a magistrates’ court conviction must give reasons. Those reasons may be brief, but must enable the defendant to understand why the conviction was upheld. Ordinarily, the court must identify the main contentious issues and indicate how it resolved them. The extent of reasoning is case-sensitive. More detailed reasoning may be required where compelling evidence supporting the defence has been rejected.

A challenge to the adequacy of reasons is distinct from a challenge to the rationality or correctness of the decision. The Crown Court is not confined by the prosecution’s opening when determining whether the statutory test for careless driving is met. Each defendant’s guilt must be considered separately.

The claimant was convicted by the magistrates’ court of careless driving contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 after his tipper truck collided with an HGV while he was executing a left-hand turn. The Crown Court reheard the appeals of both drivers, dismissed the claimant’s appeal and allowed the other driver’s appeal.

Permission for judicial review was granted only on the ground that the Crown Court had given inadequate reasons. The claimant argued that the Crown Court’s factual findings were internally contradictory, failed to explain why his evidence was rejected, and could not be reconciled with the treatment of the other driver. The central issue was whether the reasons sufficiently explained the finding that his driving fell below the statutory standard.

1. Claim dismissed. The Crown Court’s reasons were adequate. It had concluded that the manoeuvre was reasonable only if it was safe to perform, and that the claimant had been careless because he had failed adequately to assess whether it was safe.
2. The duty to give reasons requires the court to say enough to show that it identified the main contentious issues and how it resolved them. Reasons need not take the form of a full judgment or analyse every item of evidence. The required degree of explanation depends on the circumstances.
3. The Crown Court accepted the claimant’s evidence about his indicators, beacons and mirror checks, but nevertheless found that he had not done enough to ensure that his intentions had been understood by following traffic. If there was insufficient time to check the mirrors and assess the traffic properly, he should have slowed or stopped before completing the manoeuvre. That reasoning enabled him to understand why he was convicted.
4. The claimant’s further challenge sought to interrogate the rationality or correctness of the Crown Court’s conclusion, rather than the adequacy of its reasons. The judicial review permission did not extend to an irrationality challenge.
5. The Crown Court was not bound by the prosecution’s opening formulation that the claimant had failed to check his mirrors or signal left. It was entitled to determine whether the statutory test for careless driving was satisfied on the evidence as a whole, including whether the mirror checks were adequate.
6. The different outcomes for the two drivers did not make the reasons inadequate. The guilt or innocence of each defendant had to be considered separately.

• Crown Court: On a rehearing of the appeals, the claimant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed and the other driver’s appeal was allowed.
• High Court, Divisional Court: The claim for judicial review was dismissed.