This report concerns Headley who ignored a summons in his name and allowed informations alleging contraventions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 committed by his brother to be proved in his own name. He was charged with perverting the course of justice.

The facts, taken from the judgment of The Lord Chief Justice, were as follows. On August 26, 1991 when Headley's brother was driving Headley's car it was stopped by a police officer because it was not displaying a vehicle excise licence. The officer issued a fogin requiring the production of documents at a police station. The documents were not produced and a summons was issued in Headley' s name. He did not attend court and was sentenced in his absence at Skegness magistrates' court on September 7, 1992 for driving without a licence, having no insurance or test certificate and failing to produce insurance and a test certificate to the police. He was fined a total of Ł260, ordered to pay Ł20 costs and his licence was endorsed with eight penalty points.

Headley did not make regular payments and the matter was sent to the Salisbury magistrates' court, which sought to recover the fine and costs. The matter came to light when a police officer executed a warrant for non-payment of fines and Headley gave a different date of birth from that on the warrant. He explained the discrepancy by saying that his brother had been stopped when driving his car and had given the wrong date of birth.

"Perverting the course of justice. Particulars of offence: [Headley] on a day between August 25, 1991 and September 8, 1992 did a series of acts tending to pervert the course of justice, namely that he allowed informations alleging contraventions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 committed by [his brother] to be proved and sentenced by the Skegness magistrates' court in [his] name, intending that the course of justice should thereby be perverted."

A submission was made to the trial Judge that there was no case to answer on the basis that Headley had not done any act, let alone a series of acts. The Judge, ruling against the submission, said that Headley's acquiescence could found a conviction of the offence. Following that ruling Headley changed his plea to guilty.

The offence was committed where a person or persons acted or embarked upon a course of conduct which had a tendency to and was intended to pervert the course of public justice: see R. v. Vreones [1891] 1 QB 360; and Archbold's Pleading, Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases (vol. 2, 1994, para. 28-1). It was submitted that here there was no act or course of conduct on Headley's part which could satisfy the requirements of that ingredient of the offence. Headley was charged specifically in relation to the proceedings in the Skegness court. He did not appear before that court or make any representations.

On the facts of the case Headley did not act and did not pursue any course of conduct which could amount to the necessary ingredient of the actus reus of the offence. He remained silent. He did nothing.

The case ought to have been stopped by the trial Judge. The acquiescence was insufficient to form any basis for the charge. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

In R. v. Devito and Devito [1975] Crim. L.R. 175 (CA) it was held that it was perverting the course of justice to plead guilty to another person's crime, in order to shield him. The court here was faced with a different situation yet, albeit by analogy, the situation here seems just as culpable.

LINKS