Godfrey v Governor of HM Prison Brixton & Anor

On an application for habeas corpus following committal under the Extradition Act 1989, the court must ask whether the evidence would be sufficient to make a case requiring an answer if the matter were a summary trial. This is a prima facie case test. The court may draw reasonable inferences from a child’s account, including the use of childish euphemisms, read in its factual context. Evidence of touching inside or on clothing may itself establish the necessary indecency. The application was refused because the evidence supplied a sufficient case on each contested charge.

The claimant was arrested in the United Kingdom on a warrant issued in South Africa and was requested to face ten charges of indecent assault alleged to have occurred while he worked at a nursery school. South Africa was a designated Commonwealth country, and authority to proceed had been issued under the Extradition Act 1989.

Following committal by District Judge Pratt at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court, the claimant applied for habeas corpus under section 11. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on charges 6, 8, 9 and 10, including the use of bracketed explanatory terms in the children’s statements.

1. The application for habeas corpus was refused. The court held that the district judge had reached the only possible conclusion on the evidence.

2. Under section 9(8) of the Extradition Act 1989, the question was whether the evidence would be sufficient to make a case requiring an answer if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information. In substance, the court had to determine whether there was a prima facie case.

3. On charge 6, the evidence that the claimant had put his hand inside or on the alleged victim’s underpants was sufficient to satisfy the issue of indecency.

4. On charge 8, the tribunal could reasonably infer that the word “flower” was a childish euphemism for vagina. The reference to a doctor, the absence of spiders and the description of the claimant as naughty permitted no other sensible interpretation.

5. On charge 9, the evidence that the claimant put his hand inside the child’s pants and top and played with the child’s genital area and breasts provided clear evidence of indecent assault.

6. On charge 10, either meaning of “fanny” identified in the judgment, together with the evidence of touching on top of the child’s panties, could support a finding of indecency.

7. The statements were supported by evidence from Police Captain Ryan and the children’s mothers describing demonstrations made during the taking of the statements. Lord Justice Rose agreed with Mr Justice Henriques.

• Bow Street Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Pratt committed the claimant on 17 January 2003 after finding that the statutory evidential threshold was met.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The application for habeas corpus under section 11 of the Extradition Act 1989 was refused.