R KARIA v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON |
| Judgment Date | 10 October 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 2175 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/438/2002 |
| Date | 10 October 2002 |
[2002] EWHC 2175 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
CO/438/2002
MR B COMPTON (instructed by WHITE & BOWKER) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MISS J BRENNAN (instructed by DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Thursday 10 October 2002
This is an appeal by way of case stated from the Crown Court at Southampton, which rejected an appeal from justices for the county of Hampshire by Mr Vijay Karia, who had been convicted by the magistrates of a number of motoring offences, namely: that on 14 June 1999 in Southampton he had driven an Audi motor car at a speed exceeding the speed limit; and that on the same occasion, he had failed to produce a certificate of insurance, failed to produce a current MOT certificate and failed to produce his driving licence, when required to do so by a constable.
The issue before the magistrates, and the only issue before the Crown Court, was whether the appellant, Mr Karia, was in fact the driver of the Audi motor car in question on the occasion when its excess speed was recorded, it was stopped, and the driver spoken to. It is important, however, to bear in mind the stage of the proceedings at which that dispute came to light.
Before the Magistrates' Court there was a dock identification by one of the police officers who had been at the scene on 14 June 1999 when the Audi motor car was stopped, as to the appellant being the driver of the motor car in question on the occasion in question.
The case for the appellant before the Crown Court, presumably before the magistrates, and before me, centres on the acceptability of a dock identification in a case such as the present. It is submitted that a dock identification is in general incompatible with Code D of the Codes of Practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and in particular paragraph 2.14; that its lack of genuine, objective, probative value is such as to be inconsistent with the requirements of a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and that, in any event, given its negligible probative value, such a dock identification cannot be, and was not in the present case, sufficient to justify a conviction.
In order to address these submissions, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case as found in the Case Stated. The hearing before the magistrates took place on 11 September 2000, well over a year after the incident in question. On 14 June 1999 late at night two police officers, Police Constable Eade and Police Constable Saunders, had been operating a laser speed detection device at The Avenue in Southampton. The Avenue is in a 40 mph speed limit area. It was the function of PC Eade to hold the laser detection device and the function of PC Saunders to pull in and stop speeding vehicles.
A red Audi motor car, registration number M44 YUS, was driven along The Avenue and the detection device showed its speed as being 64 mph. PC Saunders pulled the car in and it stopped. The driver gave his name as "Vijai Kari", but it was not clear before the Crown Court whether the names were spelt to the police constable. He gave his address as 79 Denzel Avenue, Southampton, and his date of birth as 22 January 1973. In the documentation created by PC Saunders the "7" was overwritten above what looked like a "0". The driver was issued with the normal form, requiring him to produce his driving licence, certificate of insurance and a current MOT certificate for the vehicle. No documents were produced and summonses were issued in the name of Vijai Kari, of the address I have referred to, to attend the Magistrates' Court on 29 October 1999.
It appears that there was no appearance by anyone in response to that summons on 29 October 1999. The first hearing referred to in the case stated was that of 2 June 2000. On that occasion the appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the summonses. It is not suggested that on that occasion any indication was given of the nature of his defence. The trial was adjourned to 26 June 2000. It was again adjourned then to 7 July 2000, when the appellant did not appear. Eventually, as I have already stated, the effective hearing took place on 11 September 2000.
The sole issue, it appears, was the correctness of the identification of the appellant as the driver. The justices convicted. The case stated contains little information as to what happened before the justices. I am told by Mr Compton, on behalf of the appellant, that Mr Karia was not represented and it seems he did not give evidence. He was convicted and appealed to the Crown Court.
As I have already stated, the Crown Court found as a fact that the appellant did not indicate to the prosecution before the Magistrate's Court hearing on 11 September 2000 that identification of the driver of the motor car was in issue. One can assume, therefore, that, when evidence was led by the prosecution before the magistrates, it was in ignorance of that issue; and the dock identification was made by PC Saunders similarly in ignorance of the fact that identity was in issue.
The appeal to the Crown Court was, of course, by way of re-hearing. The Case Stated records that PC Saunders gave evidence. He said that the driver of the red Audi on 14 June 1999 had been of Asian appearance and of an age consistent with his having been born in 1973, which was, of course, the year of birth given to him by the driver. PC Saunders described the driver. He said that when the car was stopped the driver got out and together they went back to the laser machine and PC Eade. The driver was shown the reading and he and PC Saunders then went back to the motor car for the remainder of the procedure. They were together for about five minutes. PC Saunders said he could not remember if the driver spelt his name but confirmed he wrote it as "Vijai Kari". On the issue of the form HORT/1 requiring the production of documents, PC Saunders asked the driver which was the most convenient police station. The driver replied "Southampton Central".
Later PC Saunders carried out a records check and checked the registration number of the car and the check came back with the owner/keeper shown as "Karia". No documents were produced and summonses were issued and sent to 79 Denzel Avenue.
The officer then said that he had seen the same car again in daytime in Southampton on an occasion between 14 June 1999 and 11 September 2000. The date of that sighting was not further specified. The officer said that the car was quite distinctive. The car he saw on the second occasion had the same tinted or dark windows. The same man was driving. The car had been either stationary or moving slowly and the driver's window was wound down.
At the Magistrate's Court on 11 September 2000 PC Saunders said he had been approached by the appellant, who said that he was representing himself. He asked to see the officer's notebook entry and was shown it. PC Saunders said in evidence to the Crown Court that he had immediately recognised the appellant as the driver of the motor car on 14 June 1999 and on the subsequent occasion. There was no doubt in his mind at all. In court he gave evidence to that effect, including a dock identification of the appellant as the driver. He similarly identified the appellant as the driver at the appeal hearing.
The appellant gave evidence before the Crown Court. He said he did not believe he was the driver of the vehicle on 14 June. At that time he was living in Bassett Avenue in Southampton. He said the red Audi was owned by his father, Ramnik Karia, who lived at 79 Denzel Avenue. It was insured for him and other members of the family to drive. He himself lived at 79 Denzel Avenue on and off and might have been living there in June 1999. None of his brothers was living there then. His date of birth was 22 January 1973; that is to say the same date as had been given to PC Saunders. He said his father was about 55 years of age, had grey hair and could not have been mistaken for someone born in 1973.
He said he had not received any of the summonses. The first he knew of the allegation was when he at Southampton Magistrate's Court on another matter. The Crown Prosecution Service had handed him the summonses. He read them and told her he knew nothing about the offences. He pointed out the incorrect spelling of the names "Vijay" and "Karia" and the overwriting of the date of birth.
He then spoke to his brother Maryus Karia (a law student), who drafted a letter to the CPS which he signed. Before the Crown Court the appellant produced what he said was an unsigned copy of the letter produced by his brother's computer and dated 4 June 2000; that is to say two days after he had pleaded "not guilty" to the summonses on 2 June. The appellant said he had received no response to that letter and there were no follow-up letters. Regrettably, the case stated does not include a summary of the content of that letter and it has not been appended to the Case Stated, but I infer from inclusion of reference to it in the Case Stated, that the copy letter produced indicated a dispute as to the identity of the driver of the red Audi on 14 June 1999, since otherwise it is difficult to see the relevance of that reference. The appellant said that he had received no response to the letter and there were no follow-up letters.
His brother, Maryus, gave evidence to the effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bates v Crown Prosecution Service
...5. We were referred to the following cases. Cooke v McCann [1994] RTR 131, Creed v Scott [1976] RTR 485, R v Turnbull [1977] QB 244, Karia v DPP [2002] EWHC 2175. 6. We were of the opinion that: That the appellant was the driver of the said motor vehicle at all material times and was guilty......
-
Embracing the Overriding Objective: Difficulties and Dilemmas in the New Criminal Climate
...for partic-ipants in all criminal courts, ‘justice’ includes ‘dealing with the case efficiently and expeditiously’.See Karia v DPP [2002] EWHC 2175 (Admin). 13 For example, R v Tibbs [2000] All ER (D) 95, [2000] 2 Cr App R 309; Leeson v DPP [2000] RTR 385; R v Jisl [2004] EWCA Crim 696, [20......