Bussetti, R (On the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] EWHC 3004 (Admin) (29 October 2020)

Bussetti, R (On the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] EWHC 3004 (Admin) (29 October 2020)

The Case Stated was inadequate for the purposes of the appeal as it did not summarise the relevant evidence, admissions, or contentions necessary for the High Court to determine whether the Chief Magistrate erred in law. The Case Stated must be sent back for amendment to include these matters, but this does not convert the appeal into a de novo factual hearing.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3004 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Paul Bussetti; Defendant/appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Application to Amend Case Stated Prior to Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Case Stated to be sent back for amendment; no determination on substantive appeal at this stage.
Legal Topics
Grossly Offensive Communications, Section 127 Communications Act 2003, Case Stated Procedure, Evidential Sufficiency, Acquittal, Appeal Process
Criminal Law Communications Law Grossly Offensive Communications Section 127 Communications Act 2003 Case Stated Procedure Evidential Sufficiency Acquittal Appeal Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Bussetti

Claimant/respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Application to Amend Case Stated Prior to Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Magistrate erred in law in acquitting the defendant due to inability to prove the WhatsApp video was the same as the YouTube video
  2. 2 Whether the court could be sure the video taken by the defendant was similar in content to the video shown in evidence
  3. 3 Whether the court was required to consider gross offensiveness of a video it could not be sure it had seen

Ratio Decidendi

The Case Stated was inadequate for the purposes of the appeal as it did not summarise the relevant evidence, admissions, or contentions necessary for the High Court to determine whether the Chief Magistrate erred in law. The Case Stated must be sent back for amendment to include these matters, but this does not convert the appeal into a de novo factual hearing.

Court Disposition

Case Stated to be sent back for amendment; no determination on substantive appeal at this stage.

Orders

  • Case Stated to be amended to include summaries of relevant evidence, admissions, contentions, and the YouTube video as an appendix.