Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler

This case concerned an appeal by way of case stated to the Supreme Court from the Divisional Court. The case involved an appeal by protesters against their conviction for obstructing a highway. The protesters were opposed to an arms fair and had attached themselves to lock boxes in the middle of a road leading to the fair. They were arrested after approximately 90 minutes and charged with wilful obstruction of a highway. The protesters were acquitted at first instance, but the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and directed convictions be entered. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the Divisional Court and remitted the matter back to the Magistrates’ Court for further examination of the facts. The Supreme Court found that the test to be applied by an appellate court to an assessment of the decision of the trial court in respect of a statutory defence of “lawful excuse” when Convention rights are engaged in a criminal matter was the same as that applicable generally to appeals on questions of law in a case stated under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, namely that set out in Edwards v Bairstow. That means that an appeal will be allowed where there is an error of law material to the decision reached which is apparent on the face of the case, or if the decision is one which no reasonable court, properly instructed as to the relevant law, could have reached on the facts found. The Supreme Court found that the Divisional Court was correct to identify errors by the district judge in his assessment of proportionality. However, the Supreme Court found that the Divisional Court’s own assessment of proportionality was also flawed and would have allowed the appeal on a more limited basis than the majority, to require that the case be remitted to the Magistrates’ Court.