The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol and being in charge of a vehicle with excess alcohol. It was clear that on the facts the former charge included the latter. The magistrates found the facts proved but convicted only on the driving charge and acquitted on the lesser charge. The prosecutor appealed by way of case stated. The justices stated in the case that they had concluded that it would be oppressive to convict on the lesser charge because they were only dealing with a single set of facts.
Held: The court said that the Magistrates’ Court was wrong to acquit on the lesser charge. Taylor LJ said: ‘If, however, the prosecution had at that stage wished to keep its position open, pending any possible appeal with regard to the driving offence, certain alternatives were available.
Section 10 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 provides for adjournment of trial as follows: ‘A magistrates’ court may at any time, whether before or after beginning to try an information, adjourn the trial, and may do so, notwithstanding anything in this Act, when composed of a single justice.’
The justices could, therefore, have adjourned the alternative charge No.2 sine die, which would have left it open for them to pursue it to conviction had the matter been referred back after a successful appeal on charge 4. Alternatively, they could have convicted of it and imposed a concurrent disqualification on that charge but no further penalty if they felt it would have been oppressive to have imposed any further fine. The result of that would have been that if a successful appeal had been mounted in regard to the driving charge there would still have remained a conviction on the alternative offence of charge 2 with an appropriate disqualification, although of course no fine.’
Judges:
Taylor LJ, Rougier J
Citations:
[1991] Crim LR 711, [1991] JP 846
Statutes:
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 10
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dyer, Regina (on The Application of) v Watford Magistrates Court Admn 16-Jan-2012
The appellant sought judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to convict him of the two offences of causing racially aggravated fear or provocation of violence, contrary to section 31(1)(a) of the 1998 Act, and of causing fear or provocation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.510022