This week’s Digest considers a decision of the Divisional Court quashing a conviction on the basis that the evidence on which the conviction was based should have been excluded by the magistrates under s. 78 PACE for being obtained in breach of Code C.
Miller v Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] EWHC 262 (Admin)
The judgment, available here, was handed down by Hickinbottom LJ on 15.02.18.
This issue in this appeal was whether the magistrates should have excluded evidence obtained in breach of PACE Code C; the Court held that the magistrates were wrong not to exclude the evidence, and accordingly quashed the appellant’s conviction. A preliminary issue arose as to whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal: it was contended that an interlocutory ruling of the magistrates’ court was binding and only challengeable by judicial review. The Court held it did have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
This was an appeal by way of case stated. It raised the issue of whether the magistrates’ court lawfully exercised its discretion under s. 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (‘PACE’) not to exclude the evidence of the drug drive procedure at Oldbury Police Station which led to the appellant’s conviction for failing to provide specimen of blood in breach of s. 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
A preliminary issue arose as to whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Section 8A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, the respondent contended, made the ruling of the magistrates’ court on an interlocutory application binding; and, consequently, such decisions could only be challenged by an application for judicial review. This submission was rejected: the Court held that nothing in s. 8A suggested that, where the illegality relied upon by an appellant occurred at an interlocutory stage, the appellant is no longer able to appeal by way of case stated.
In terms of the substantive issue on appeal, the Court concluded that the magistrates were wrong not to exclude the evidence on the appellant’s application. There had been a breach of Code C of PACE in failing to inform and summon an appropriate adult to the police station when the appellant was detained. Accordingly, the magistrates were wrong in law not to exclude the evidence of the drug drive procedure which formed the basis of the conviction. The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed.
Online courtrooms to pave way for digital justice
The first online courtroom hearings for claimants, in which parties and their lawyers are to appear by video link, are to begin this spring. At this point, letters are being sent to people due to take part in tax appeals to see whether they would prefer proceedings to be conducted online.
The full piece can be read here.
More victims of modern slavery may get leave to remain
A man who has spent more than twenty years as a slave won a significant victory in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), which could result in more victims of trafficking being granted leave to remain in the UK.
The full piece can be read here; the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), R (PK (Ghana)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 98, is available here.
Unaccredited labs dealing with digital forensic work
It has been reported that police forces have been outsourcing digital investigative forensic work to unaccredited laboratories; this comes at a time where a number of cases have collapsed because of problems with evidence.
The full piece can be read here.
Judge refuses to withdraw Assange arrest warrant
The Senior District Judge refused to quash the Assange arrest warrant. She was unpersuaded by the argument that it was no longer in the public interest to pursue him for failing to surrender.
The full piece can be read here; the Senior District Judge’s judgment is available here.
