Pattison v Director of Public Prosecutions, England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

JOHN C. ELVIDGE (instructed by Kingsley Brookes) for the Appellant
ADRIAN WATERMAN (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent

Judges

MR JUSTICE NEWMAN

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Pattison v. Director of Public Prosecutions

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a decision of Leeds Magistrates' Court where the Appellant was convicted on 31st January 2005 of driving while disqualified, failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis, and using a motor vehicle without third party insurance and a valid MOT test certificate. The incident occurred on 18th July 2004 when a police officer observed erratic driving by a white Isuzu Trooper in The City. Upon stopping the vehicle, the driver moved from the front to the rear seat and refused to accompany the officer. The individual identified himself with details matching those of a disqualified driver. He was arrested for driving whilst disqualified and suspected drink driving, but failed to provide a breath specimen citing asthma and later refused a blood specimen on religious grounds. The Magistrates accepted the prosecution’s evidence, including a certificate of conviction showing disqualification, and convicted the Appellant. The Appellant raised two legal submissions challenging the sufficiency of the memorandum of conviction for identification and the proof of failure to provide a breath specimen considering a claimed reasonable excuse. The appeal was brought by way of Case Stated for the High Court's opinion on these legal issues.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether there was sufficient evidence before the Justices, having regard to R v Derwentside ex parte Heaviside, to prove the Defendant was a disqualified driver and properly identified in the memorandum of conviction as a disqualified driver.
Whether the Justices could properly convict the Defendant for the offence of failing to provide specimen or specimens of breath on the facts and law presented.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The memorandum of conviction was insufficient to prove the Defendant’s identity as a disqualified driver, relying on authorities including R v Derwentside Justices ex parte Heaviside and DPP v Olakunori.
Regarding the failure to provide a breath specimen, once a reasonable excuse was raised (medical condition of asthma), it was the prosecution’s burden to disprove it, citing Rowland v Thorpe.

Prosecution's Arguments

The prosecution submitted that the certificate of conviction, combined with matching personal details and the Defendant’s failure to contradict identity, was sufficient to prove the Defendant was the disqualified driver.
Conceded that asthma was accepted as a medical reason at the time of the breath test refusal but argued that the Defendant’s subsequent refusal to provide a blood specimen on religious grounds and his overall conduct justified the conclusion that no reasonable excuse existed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Derwentside Justices ex parte Heaviside [1996] RTR 384	Methods of proving identity of a person named on a certificate of conviction; requirement of strict proof but no exclusive methods.	Used to frame the question of sufficiency of evidence to prove the Appellant’s identity as the disqualified driver.
DPP v Olakunori [1998] EWHC Admin 722	Establishing identity through coincidence of personal details and absence of contradictory evidence; burden on prosecution to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt.	Supported principle that a prima facie case can be made by matching details and lack of rebuttal by the accused.
Rowland v Thorpe [1970] 3 All ER 195	Burden on prosecution to disprove reasonable excuse for failure to provide a breath specimen.	Applied to assess whether the prosecution had discharged the burden of disproving the Appellant’s claimed asthma excuse.
Ellis v Jones [1973] 2 All ER 893	Robust approach to identification evidence; statements admitted under statute treated as oral evidence; presumption of identity absent contrary suggestion.	Clarified evidential approach to identification supporting the prosecution’s case.
R v Derwentside Justices ex parte Swift and R v Sunderland Justices ex parte Bate [1997] RTR 89	Expanded means of proving identity beyond the three methods in Heaviside; admissibility of section 9 statements.	Confirmed that identification can be proved by multiple admissible means, not limited to prior categories.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Mooney [1997] RTR 434	Clarification that methods of proof for identity are not exclusive and can include any admissible evidence.	Supported flexible evidential approach to proving identity in criminal proceedings.
Bailey v DPP 163 JP 518 (1998)	Where evidence suggests a realistic alternative explanation for identity on certificate, prosecution must exclude it.	Distinguished as an illustration that if no realistic alternative is shown, matching details suffice.
Whitmarsh v DPP (unreported, 1 March 2000)	Section 9 statement sufficient for identification; failure to give evidence allows adverse inference under section 35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.	Applied to confirm sufficiency of evidence for identification and implications of silence by accused.
Moran v The Crown Prosecution Service; R (Kingsnorth and Denny) v DPP [2003]; R (Howe) v South Durham Magistrates' Court [2004]	Referenced but held not to assist with the principles or facts in the instant case.	Distinguished and not applied.
West Yorkshire Probation Board v Boulter [2005] EWHC 2342 (Admin)	Inference that a person before the court with matching name, address, and date of birth is the same person previously convicted.	Supported the principle that magistrates may draw such an inference absent contradictory evidence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court commenced by analysing the evidential requirements under section 73(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for proving a prior conviction through a certificate. It identified two stages: production of the certificate and proof to the criminal standard that the accused is the person named in it. The court reviewed the case law, particularly Heaviside, Ellis v Jones, and subsequent cases, to clarify that while strict proof is required, there is no exclusive method of proof. Admissible evidence including admissions, police evidence, and matching personal details can suffice.

The court noted that the Appellant’s details on the certificate coincided uniquely with his own and that he failed to rebut this prima facie case by giving evidence or denying the disqualification. The court found the Magistrates entitled to conclude identity was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Regarding the failure to provide a breath specimen, the court examined the burden on the prosecution to disprove reasonable excuse, referencing Rowland v Thorpe. While the police officer initially accepted asthma as a medical reason, this acceptance was based solely on the Appellant’s word. The subsequent refusal to provide a blood specimen on religious grounds and the overall conduct led the Magistrates to reject the medical excuse. The court agreed that the Magistrates were entitled to find no reasonable excuse existed and thus to convict.

Holding and Implications

The court answered both questions affirmatively, confirming the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the Appellant was the disqualified driver and that the conviction for failure to provide a breath specimen was proper.

The appeal is dismissed.

The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the Appellant’s convictions. No new legal precedent was established beyond a reaffirmation and clarification of existing principles concerning proof of identity from certificates of conviction and the prosecution’s burden regarding reasonable excuse in breath specimen cases.