Campbell, R (On the Application Of) v Peterborough Magistrates Court

Inconsistencies in a complainant’s evidence do not prevent conviction where the tribunal of fact, having assessed the witness directly, reasonably concludes that the central account is truthful and accurate. The tribunal may attribute discrepancies to factors such as youth, nervousness, vulnerability, the passage of time and the circumstances of the allegation. An appellate court should not substitute its own assessment where the conclusion is reasonably open on the evidence. Reasons are sufficient if they identify the essential factual findings, explain why inconsistencies did not undermine the central complaint, and state why competing evidence was rejected.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by the Peterborough Youth Court on 11 March 2003 for indecent assault, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The complainant, aged 16 at the time, gave inconsistent accounts about the timing and number of assaults. The magistrates accepted her as essentially truthful, rejected the claimant’s evidence, and convicted him.

The case stated asked whether, notwithstanding those inconsistencies, the magistrates were entitled to find the complainant credible and convict on her testimony, and whether their reasons were sufficient.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to accept the complainant’s evidence despite inconsistencies arising in cross-examination.
2. The primary task of the magistrates was to assess the witnesses’ demeanour and credibility. They were impressed by the complainant’s evidence in chief and reasonably treated the inconsistent answers as resulting from her nervousness and vulnerability, rather than deliberate fabrication. They were also entitled to consider the prompt complaint to her boyfriend, the passage of time and the surrounding circumstances.
3. The magistrates’ factual findings made clear that they found one assault, occurring after the claimant returned to the telephone box. Their conclusion that the complainant’s central account was essentially truthful was therefore a permissible finding of fact.
4. The reasons were adequate. They explained why the inconsistencies did not undermine the essential truthfulness of the complaint, why the claimant’s account was rejected, and why the prosecution had proved the essential elements of the offence to the required standard.
5. The answer to the question posed in the case stated was affirmative. The conviction stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On an appeal by way of case stated, the court upheld the Peterborough Youth Court’s conviction and dismissed the appeal.