Chief Constable of Kent Police, R (on the application of) v Geoffrey Marshall & Anor

An appeal by way of case stated is confined to questions of law and jurisdiction. The High Court does not rehear the facts or reassess the evidence. An acquittal may nevertheless disclose an error of law where the magistrates’ court fails to consider unchallenged evidence bearing directly on the factual issue it had to determine, so that its finding lacks an evidential basis. Where that error undermines the acquittal, the High Court may quash the determination and remit the matter for a new trial.

The Chief Constable appealed by way of case stated against the acquittal of Geoffrey Marshall by Sevenoaks Magistrates’ Court on a speeding charge. The prosecution relied on evidence from an automated average-speed camera and accompanying photographs. The magistrates doubted whether the photographs established the location of the vehicle within the 50 miles per hour detection zone and acquitted Mr Marshall.

The stated questions were whether the acquittal was a determination which any properly considering court could reasonably make and whether the magistrates’ findings lacked an evidential basis. The central issue was whether the magistrates’ assessment of the photographic evidence failed to take account of unchallenged evidence explaining when the automated camera generated its records.

1. Scope of the appeal. An appeal by way of case stated under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 concerns law and jurisdiction. The High Court is not a fact-finding tribunal and must proceed on the facts stated. A challenge to the weight of the evidence or to findings of fact ordinarily belongs in the Crown Court.
2. The High Court may intervene where a factual finding amounts to an error of law because no reasonable tribunal could have reached it, or because the finding lacked an evidential basis. That approach was supported by Cuciurean v Crown Prosecution Service [2024] EWHC 848 (Admin) and Oladimeji v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] EWHC 1199 (Admin).
3. The magistrates were entitled to find that the prosecution photographs, viewed in isolation, did not conclusively identify the exit location. They were also entitled to doubt whether the photographs at MW01(b) and MW11 showed the same place. However, they failed to consider unchallenged evidence in MG11-1 that the SPECS3 camera captured evidence only when a vehicle was travelling above the relevant speed threshold within the detection zone.
4. That omission was material. The evidence supported an inference that the photograph of Mr Marshall leaving the detection zone was triggered because he was travelling above the applicable limit there. Failure to consider it meant that the magistrates’ findings lacked an evidential basis and constituted an error of law.
5. Under section 28A(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the acquittal was quashed and the matter was remitted to the magistrates’ court for a new trial.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal by way of case stated, quashed the magistrates’ acquittal and remitted the matter for a new trial.
• Sevenoaks Magistrates’ Court: Acquitted Mr Marshall of the speeding offence following a trial on 19 February 2025. The case was stated on 1 May 2025.