Clement, R (on the application of) v Durham County Magistrates' Court

Clement, R (on the application of) v Durham County Magistrates' Court

Maintaining records in the form set out in Schedule 5 does not satisfy the requirement to maintain records in the form set out in Schedule 1 of the Order, as the two serve different statutory purposes. The magistrates misapplied the burden of proof by suggesting it reverts to the defence after a prima facie case is made, contrary to established law. The convictions must be quashed due to this fundamental error.

Parties
Claimant: Alan Hall Clement; Defendant: Durham County Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (case Stated Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Statutory Interpretation, Animal Movement Records, Appeal by Case Stated
Criminal Law Administrative Law Animal Health Law Burden of Proof Statutory Interpretation Animal Movement Records Appeal by Case Stated

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Hall Clement

Claimant

Durham County Magistrates' Court

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (case Stated Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether maintaining records in the form set out in Schedule 5 of the Pigs (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1995 satisfies the requirement to maintain records in the form set out in Schedule 1 of the Order
  2. 2 Whether justices could rely on a defence submission as an admission of fact regarding ownership or control of pigs
  3. 3 Whether justices were entitled to rely on documents produced by a witness to find as fact that they bore the signature of Mr Clement

Ratio Decidendi

Maintaining records in the form set out in Schedule 5 does not satisfy the requirement to maintain records in the form set out in Schedule 1 of the Order, as the two serve different statutory purposes. The magistrates misapplied the burden of proof by suggesting it reverts to the defence after a prima facie case is made, contrary to established law. The convictions must be quashed due to this fundamental error.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • convictions quashed
  • defendant's costs to be paid out of central funds