Charles v Crown Prosecution Service

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was arrested early in the morning, found slumped over the steering wheel of a vehicle with the parking lights on and keys in the ignition. He was arrested on suspicion of being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs. Approximately one hour later, he provided breath specimens, with the lower specimen showing 74 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. The Appellant was informed at 7:43 am that he would be charged, but despite this, he was interviewed without being properly informed of the offence under investigation. During the interview, he admitted to driving the vehicle and was subsequently charged with driving while under the influence, an offence carrying compulsory disqualification. The magistrates found breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code of Practice in the conduct of the interview, but admitted the confession as evidence and convicted the Appellant. This appeal challenges the admissibility of the interview evidence and the resulting conviction.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the magistrates were correct in law to admit the evidence obtained from the interview conducted after the Appellant had been informed he would be charged.
2. Whether the magistrates applied the correct legal test under Sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 when deciding on the admissibility of the confession.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The interview was conducted in breach of the Code of Practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, specifically paragraph C 16.5, which prohibits interviewing a detainee after they have been charged or informed they may be prosecuted unless the interview is necessary for specified reasons.
• The Appellant was not properly cautioned with the correct form of words after being informed he would be charged, undermining the validity of any admissions made.
• The confession was obtained without the Appellant being aware of the offence being investigated, thus rendering the admission unreliable and unfairly prejudicial.
• The magistrates failed to properly consider the significance of the breaches when applying Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to exclude evidence that would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution conceded that absent the admission made during the interview, there was no case against the Appellant for driving while under the influence.
• The confession was voluntary and there was no bad faith on the part of the police in obtaining it.
• The magistrates found that the Appellant knew he was over the prescribed alcohol limit before the interview and voluntarily admitted driving, thus the admission did not adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the procedural breaches in the conduct of the interview, focusing on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its Code of Practice. It noted the clear breach of paragraph C 16.5, which prohibits interviewing a detainee after charging or informing them of prosecution unless the interview is necessary, a condition not met here. Furthermore, the court emphasized the improper caution given, which failed to clearly inform the Appellant of his right to silence without prejudice to his defence.

The court acknowledged the magistrates' findings that the confession was voluntary and that there was no police bad faith. However, it stressed that voluntariness alone does not resolve the admissibility question under Section 78, which requires consideration of whether admitting the evidence would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings. The court found that the magistrates did not properly weigh the significance of the breaches or the Appellant's lack of awareness about the offence under investigation during the interview.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the magistrates were wrong in law to admit the interview evidence and that although they applied the correct legal test, they failed to consider all relevant factors, rendering their decision flawed.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL, overturning the conviction based on the improperly admitted interview evidence.

The direct effect is the quashing of the Appellant's disqualification and conviction for driving with excess alcohol. No new legal precedent was established, but the decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its Code of Practice in safeguarding detainee rights and ensuring fairness in criminal proceedings.