Director of Public Prosecutions v Steven Ward

At the close of the prosecution case, magistrates must apply the Galbraith case-to-answer test. They must consider the prosecution evidence at its highest and ask whether, on a possible view of that evidence, a reasonable and properly directed bench could convict. They must not decide whether they themselves would acquit on the evidence then available.

Where a driver has seen pedestrians in the road ahead, an assessment that speed was appropriate for the road, weather or manoeuvre does not answer whether it was appropriate in view of the pedestrians. On a case stated appeal, the High Court conducts a public-law reasonableness review and does not substitute its own assessment of the merits. A failure to address a material evidential issue, or reliance on unagreed defence evidence before it has been tested, may amount to an error of law.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated from the decision of magistrates at Peterlee on 5 December 2022. The respondent had been charged with driving without due care and attention, contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The magistrates upheld a submission of no case to answer and recorded an acquittal.

The prosecution relied principally on CCTV footage and the respondent’s police interview. The magistrates considered that his speed appeared appropriate, that he reacted by braking and changing course, and that the evidence was insufficient for a properly directed tribunal to convict. The questions for the High Court were whether that decision was legally correct and whether the finding was one which no reasonable tribunal could have reached.

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates’ decision was quashed and the charge was remitted for a fresh trial before a differently constituted bench.
2. Rule 24.3(3)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Rules and R v Galbraith require the court at the close of the prosecution case to consider the evidence at its highest. The question is whether, on one possible view of that evidence, a reasonable and properly directed bench could properly convict. This is a determination of law, distinct from deciding whether the magistrates would convict after all the evidence.
3. In a summary trial, magistrates must apply that test while recognising that, if the case proceeds, they will perform the fact-finding function. They must not substitute the question whether they would acquit on the evidence then available.
4. The magistrates’ reasons did not adequately address whether the respondent should have reduced speed or sounded his horn before the pedestrian moved into the van’s path. The relevant issue was not merely whether his speed was appropriate for the area, weather or manoeuvre, but whether it was appropriate after he had seen youths in the road ahead.
5. The magistrates also relied on an apparent determination of speed which was materially informed by an unagreed defence expert report. That evidence had not yet been challenged and should have been put to one side at the half-time stage.
6. Under section 111(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, the High Court’s function on a case stated appeal is limited to determining whether the decision was wrong in law or exceeded jurisdiction. The review involves public-law reasonableness principles and is not a merits appeal.
7. As to costs, the criminal costs regime was applicable. No order was made in the High Court, leaving any later costs issue to be considered by the magistrates’ court after the retrial.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by case stated was allowed. The magistrates’ acquittal based on no case to answer was quashed, and a fresh trial before a differently constituted bench was directed.
• Magistrates’ Court at Peterlee: On 5 December 2022, the magistrates upheld a no-case submission and recorded a verdict of not guilty.