Commission refers the conviction of June Wild

The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the driving offence conviction of June Wild to the Crown Court.

Ms Wild pleaded not guilty at Shrewsbury and North Shropshire Magistrates’ Court in May 2013 to a charge of failing to provide information as to the identity of a driver.

She was convicted and fined £240 and given six penalty points. The fine was later reduced to £165 on appeal.

Having reviewed the case the Commission has decided to refer Ms Wild’s conviction because it considers there is a real possibility that, on a rehearing of the evidence, the Crown Court would not uphold the conviction for failing to provide information as to the identity of the driver of a vehicle.

The referral is made on the basis of new arguments in relation to a defective Notice of Intended Prosecution which meant that: (i) the elements of the offence were not made out and/or (ii) she was prejudiced in her defence; and/or that Ms Wild could establish (as keeper) the defence under Road Traffic Act (RTA) 1988 s172(4) or (as any other person) that she had as required given any information which it was in her power to give and which might have led to identification of the driver under RTA 1988 s172(2)(b).

Ms Wild was not legally represented in her application to the Commission.

This press release was issued by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. For further enquires call 0121 233 1473 or e-mail

Notes for editors

  1. The Commission is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.
  1. There are currently 12 Commissioners who bring to the Commission considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.
  1. The Commission usually receives around 1,500 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) each year.  Typically, around 3.5%, or one in 29, of all applications are referred to the appeal courts.
  1. The Commission considers whether, as a result of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made.  New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal.  Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.
  1. If a case is referred, it is then for the appeal court to decide whether the conviction is unsafe or the sentence unfair.