Leamy, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: This is an application on behalf of an appellant, who was convicted of driving in excess of a temporary 50 mile per hour speed limit on the M11 motorway, for an addition to be made to the Case Stated in the following respect. The police officer who gave the evidence on behalf of the prosecution undoubtedly, as the Magistrates have recorded in the Case Stated, accepted in cross-examination that he had no personal knowledge as to whether the signs identifying where the speed limit commenced complied with the relevant Regulations because he had not personally measured them. The addition which Mr Sonn, on behalf of the appellant, wishes to have made to the Case Stated is that his recollection and that of his client, who is a solicitor, is that the police officer went on to accept that he did not in fact know what the requirements of the Regulation were.

2. It seems to us that the issue before this court when it deals with the matter, which is whether or not the prosecution are entitled to rely on an inference in circumstances where there is no material to suggest that the sign does not comply with the Regulations, is not advanced in any way by the addition to the Case Stated. It seems to us that for the purposes of the argument that the appellant wishes to put forward, he has all the material that he needs; and the question will be for the court, ultimately, whether or not that argument succeeds. I would, accordingly, refuse the application for an amendment of the Case Stated, whether or not the recollection of Mr Sonn and his client is correct.

3. MR JUSTICE McCOMBE: I agree.

4. MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: I agree.

5. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: As far as costs are concerned, the appropriate order, I would suggest, would be costs reserved.

6. MR MILNE: I respectfully agree.

7. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: Thank you. Costs reserved.