England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		10th May 2006

1. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: This is an appeal by way of case stated from the Crown Court at Cardiff on 25th June 2004 dismissing the appellant's appeal against conviction for exceeding the speed limit which was by the Pontypridd Magistrates' Court on 8th April 2004.
2. On 26th May 2003, very nearly two years ago, the appellant was driving along Broadway, Pontypridd when he was found by a police officer using a laser device to be travelling at 41 miles per hour in a 30 mile an hour limit. He was fined £100, ordered to pay £100 costs, and his licence was endorsed with three penalty points.
3. The fact underlying this appeal is that the appellant wanted to have disclosed, but was refused, the video recording of the whole speed enforcement session in order for him to have it analysed. As the judge could not see to what issue the whole tape went, the application was rejected. The appellant has not come to court to prosecute his appeal. He applied for an adjournment which I refused yesterday. It was a repeat of an earlier application in March that had been granted and seemed to be in very similar terms. The application for an adjournment did not seek to descend to any detailed particulars, nor was it supported by any documents and it was made very late in the day. It seems to me that in the interests of justice, the appeal should proceed. The appellant has not appeared to prosecute his appeal.
4. In these circumstances, the papers show absolutely no merit whatever in the appeal, in my judgment. There are three questions posed for the court which for my part I would answer as follows:

(1) Whether the appellant had an absolute right to disclosure of the whole video recording under section 3 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 on the facts found by the court. No.

(2) Whether the court was correct as a matter of law to conclude that the whole video recording should not be disclosed. Yes.

(3) Whether the appellant was deprived of a fair hearing of his appeal in breach of Article 6 of the ECHR because he did not have access to the entire video recording of the enforcement session. No.

5. I would accordingly dismiss the appeal and answer the questions in that manner.
6. MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW: I agree.
7. MR ACE: Thank you, my Lords. I am instructed to ask for costs. There were substantial costs in running this appeal through the course. I have specific instructions for £1,633.
8. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You had better show us how that is justified.
9. MR ACE: It is, first of all, the drafting of the respondent's case.
10. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do you have a breakdown of the assessment?
11. MR ACE: No. I am submitting hours undertaken.
12. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Ordinarily the court would be presented with a piece of paper as to how the figure is arrived at. You had better tell us. What is the total figure?
13. MR ACE: The total figure is £1,633. Breaking it down, £1,500 for the brief fee, hours of work undertaken, which I can say were 12, and then --
14. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: At a hourly rate of? About a hundred and something, is it not?
15. MR ACE: £125.
16. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It rather looks like a figure plucked out of the air.
17. MR ACE: £125 is the hourly rate. That would be correct. Then the travel expenses of the second class return from Cardiff plus a Railcard. Usually you can ask for first class but I have not done that. I am asking for what I use.
18. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That is?
19. MR ACE: £128 and £4.90.
20. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I see. Yes. We will discuss the situation.
(Pause)

We have some doubts whether you will recover any costs anyway and we think, although we find it difficult to quarrel with the overall figure of £1,633, it is a little disproportionate in the circumstances. We will give you costs of £1,000.

21. MR ACE: Thank you very much.