The Director of Public Prosecutions v Sugden

The Director of Public Prosecutions v Sugden

The district judge erred by applying the best evidence rule to a document used for refreshing memory rather than applying the statutory test under section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The law permits a witness to refresh memory from a copy if it is likely to be accurate and verified, and there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: William James Sugden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Case Stated / Appeal From Magistrates' Court Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Refreshing Memory From Documents, Best Evidence Rule, Admissibility of Copies, Section 139 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Evidence Refreshing Memory From Documents Best Evidence Rule Admissibility of Copies Section 139 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Appellant

William James Sugden

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Case Stated / Appeal From Magistrates' Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the district judge erred in applying the best evidence rule to a memory refreshing document under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to allow a police officer to refresh his memory from a copy of a Form MG DD/A

Ratio Decidendi

The district judge erred by applying the best evidence rule to a document used for refreshing memory rather than applying the statutory test under section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The law permits a witness to refresh memory from a copy if it is likely to be accurate and verified, and there was no evidence of prejudice to the defence. The refusal to allow memory refreshing from the copy was therefore an error of law.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Verdict of not guilty set aside
  • Retrial of the excess alcohol offence ordered before a differently constituted magistrates’ court