Simon Wiltshire, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Bristol
[2023] EWHC 2879 (Admin)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Steven Ward
9 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1763 (Admin)
High Court
A driver was accused of careless driving after hitting a pedestrian. The lower court said there wasn't enough evidence to convict. The High Court disagreed, saying the lower court didn't properly consider all the evidence and should have considered whether the driver should have slowed down or warned the pedestrian. The case will be tried again.
Key Facts
- •Appeal by way of case stated from a Magistrates' Court decision.
- •Respondent charged with driving without due care and attention (Road Traffic Act 1988).
- •Magistrates found there was no case to answer based on insufficient prosecution evidence.
- •CCTV footage of the incident was a key piece of evidence.
- •The incident involved a collision between the Respondent's van and a pedestrian.
- •The Magistrates considered the speed of the vehicle, the actions of the pedestrian, and the Respondent's potential to take evasive action.
Legal Principles
At the conclusion of the prosecution case, a criminal court may acquit if the prosecution evidence is insufficient for any reasonable court properly to convict (Rule 24.3(3)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Rules).
Criminal Procedure Rules
The Galbraith test determines whether there is a case to answer. In summary trials, magistrates apply this test, considering whether the evidence, taken at its highest, could allow a reasonable bench to convict (R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039; DPP v Young [2018] EWHC 3616 (Admin)).
R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039; DPP v Young [2018] EWHC 3616 (Admin)
A case stated appeal is not a merits appeal; the High Court reviews the Magistrates' decision for errors of law or excess of jurisdiction, applying a reasonableness standard (Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.111(1)).
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.111(1)
Outcomes
The High Court quashed the Magistrates' decision.
The Magistrates' reasoning was deemed unreasonable; they failed to adequately consider whether the Respondent should have taken preventative measures (reducing speed or sounding horn) before the pedestrian's sudden movement. The court also found that the Magistrates improperly considered unchallenged defence evidence.
The case was directed for a fresh trial before a different bench.
The High Court found a material error of law in the Magistrates' decision.
No costs order made by the High Court.
The criminal costs regime applied; the magistrates' court will decide on costs after retrial if there is a subsequent conviction.