Crown Court criticises magistrates’ reliance on email and questions CPS preparation as Milford Haven pensioner fights conviction

A CROWN Court judge has criticised magistrates for relying on “hearsay” material to convict Milford Haven pensioner Niall Taylor, saying he is entitled to appeal and entitled to a fair hearing.

Taylor, 76, of Haven Drive, Hakin, appeared at Swansea Crown Court on Tuesday (Jan 13) for a mention hearing in his appeal against conviction.

The court was told Taylor had previously been convicted at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence and using a motor vehicle without insurance.

Taylor had initially pleaded not guilty, but changed his plea part way through a trial. Questions were later raised over whether that guilty plea was equivocal, and the case was subsequently reopened under section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.

A full rehearing followed, with Taylor entering not guilty pleas. He was found guilty after a trial of the facts and sentenced on Wednesday (Dec 3).

However, at the Crown Court hearing this week, HHJ Geraint Walters voiced serious concerns about the material relied upon to secure the conviction.

The judge was told the magistrates had convicted Taylor after relying on email evidence without a formal witness statement from its author.

Judge Walters said that without a statement, the evidence amounted to “hearsay”, and questioned whether the magistrates had properly applied the law.

He asked: “Do the magistrates know the law? Was this a lay bench?”

Judge Walters also criticised the prosecution’s approach to the appeal, suggesting it was not sufficiently prepared.

He said: “I am triageing all appeals to this court and I want to see this appeal apple pie ready when it comes before me in three weeks time. We won’t hear the case then but we will look at progress.”

The judge questioned the prosecution’s handling of the appeal, asking: “Where is the obligation on the Crown to fairly assist a person appealing and representing themselves?”

During the hearing, Judge Walters warned that if the case was not properly prepared and progressed, it could become drawn into further litigation — potentially even reaching the High Court — and that this could result in it being sent back down to the magistrates’ court again.

The matter will return to Swansea Crown Court in around three weeks for a progress hearing. The appeal itself will not be heard at that stage, but the judge said he expects the case to be ready for effective case management.

The Pembrokeshire Herald understands the appeal will focus on the insurance conviction.

Why the judge’s criticism stands out

The core issue the judge highlighted was the reliance on email evidence without a formal witness statement from its author. Under English and Welsh evidence rules:

• Hearsay evidence (out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted) is generally inadmissible unless it falls under a specific exception or is admitted via a formal process (e.g., under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provisions for business documents, res gestae, or other gateways).
• An email, without supporting witness testimony or a formal statement, would typically constitute hearsay if used to prove key facts (such as the status of insurance or licence details).
• The judge explicitly called this “hearsay” and questioned whether the magistrates had properly applied the law on admissibility.