QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE NICOL
____________________
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | Appellant | |
v | ||
JOBLING | Respondent |
____________________
trading as DTI
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr S Heptonstall (instructed by CPS Appeals Unit) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr A Birkby (instructed by Michael Henderson and Co) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"On the basis of the evidence presented to the court, representations made on the submission of no case to answer and the findings of the court, were the magistrates correct to uphold the submission of no case to answer?"
"Any party to a proceeding in a magistrates' court who is aggrieved by the conviction order or other determination may question the proceeding on the ground that it is wrong in law [...] by applying to justices to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on the question of law [...] involved."
1) There was bad blood between the respondent and the Jackson family.
2) The respondent's CCTV system had recorded up to 10 minutes prior to the commission of the offence.
"We made the following findings:
8.1 The purported identification of the respondent by the appellant's witnesses having regard to the Turnbull guidelines was unreliable.
8.2 The only evidence that linked the respondent to the alleged offence was the CCTV footage.
8.3 The footage was of such poor quality that it was impossible to identify the person causing the damage.
8.4 The court found that the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case and upheld the submission of no case to answer."
Discussion
"On the basis of the evidence presented to the court representations made on the submission of no case to answer and the findings of the court: were the magistrates entitled as a matter of law to uphold the submission of no case to answer? Answer: no."
'The full cost of this appeal which has been incurred by the appellant summarily assessed at, or to be determined, then the respondent's party to whom Civil Legal Services were made available under part 1, LASPO,', I condense it, 'do pay the appellant nil, a fixed amount, or an amount to be determined by a cost judge'.
"Directions in respect of which stand adjourned generally to be restored on the written request of the appellant."