R. v. Coles-Day (Stephen)
[2015] EWCA Crim 2444
In the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Case Number 2015/1726/C2
Before Lady Justice Sharp DBE, Justice Davies DBE and Judge Bourne-Arton
Decided on December 10, 2015

Relevancy of the case: Role of digital evidence in a conviction for dangerous driving

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Section 101)
• The Computer Misuse Act 1990 (Section 1(1))
• The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (Section 36(7))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• At 3:25 a.m. on November 16, 2013, the police saw a Vauxhall Vectra run a red light. The driver drove the car dangerously and eventually abandoned it near 58 Yorkland Avenue, the appellant’s address.
• A police constable identified Stephen Coles-Day as the driver and arrested him at his residence shortly after the incident.
• The appellant was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment for dangerous driving and six months concurrent for driving while disqualified.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The appellant’s counsel argued that:
  • The appellant’s friend, Kennedy, was the driver and provided Facebook messages to support this claim.
  • The appellant contended that the order of £1,500 was unreasonable given his financial circumstances, which included part-time employment and supporting a large family.
  • The recorder’s order for another extended driving test was not allowed under Section 36(7) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
• The prosecution argued that:
  • The appellant’s previous convictions for driving while disqualified and dangerous driving were relevant to show his tendency to commit similar crimes, proving his identity as the driver.
  • The appellant’s Facebook messages were self-serving attempts to deceive the court and cited his conviction for a computer-related offence as evidence of his ability to manipulate such proof.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench upheld the Recorder’s decision to admit the appellant’s previous convictions for dangerous driving and driving while disqualified, considering the identification issue and the appellant’s propensity to commit such offences relevant.
• The appellant’s conviction under the Computer Misuse Act was proper.

Final Decision

• The court only allowed the appeal to quash the costs order and correct the error regarding the extended driving test while upholding the conviction and five-year disqualification from driving.