The Appeal Court has ordered a retrial of a motorist convicted of dangerous driving.

Garry White was found guilty in June last year following a summary court trial relating to an incident on the Mountain Road in June 2024.

Police had been handed a memory stick by a member of the public containing footage which appeared to show the defendant driving dangerously. The person who supplied the footage wished to remain anonymous and their identity was not disclosed to the defence.

Mr White, who was refused legal aid and represented himself at trial, denied the offence.

In his defence, he argued that the anonymous witness had driven aggressively, forcing him to take evasive action. He asked that the witness be called by the prosecution and submitted that unless he was able to question him, the video evidence should be ruled inadmissible.

The trial before magistrates took place on June 30 last year after an application to adjourn was refused.

Giving evidence for the prosecution, PC Duke produced a copy of the footage. When asked about the witness’s anonymity, he told the court: ‘He just didn’t want to be involved in any sort of court proceedings.’

Asked whether he had reviewed the footage, he replied: ‘In my opinion that is a dangerous overtake.’

A second Roads Policing Unit officer, PC Joyce, was also asked for his view and likewise gave his opinion that the driving shown was dangerous.

In his own evidence, Mr White denied driving dangerously and blamed the person he believed had supplied the footage.

Following his conviction, he lodged an appeal and was granted legal aid, enabling him to be legally represented.

At the appeal hearing, his advocate argued that the video evidence should not have been admitted and that the magistrates ought to have heard the defendant’s application to exclude it.

He also submitted that legal aid should have been granted for the original trial and described the opinion evidence from both officers as ‘tainted’.

Roger Kane, appearing for the Attorney General’s Chambers, said it was not uncommon for witnesses to wish to remain anonymous.

In a written judgment, Judge of Appeal Anthony Cross KC and Acting Deemster Hopmeier said they were satisfied the appeal must succeed.

They said it was ‘just plain wrong’ that the justices had not heard the appellant’s submissions on admissibility.

‘This was not something that he raised on the hoof, it had been made clear in his interview and in his defence case statement,’ they said.

‘It was a real issue, which had to be resolved by argument followed by a reasoned decision. This was not done. If submissions had been made, we very much doubt that the material would have been allowed to have been admitted.’

The judges added: ‘This was a serious matter and it is right that it is remitted to another bench of summary jurisdiction as soon as reasonably possible. In our judgment, this matter will be better dealt with by either the High Bailiff or his deputy.’