Forde v Quinn

A criminal conviction is not vitiated merely because a fact-finding court has imperfectly rationalised differences between honest witnesses. The essential question is whether, having considered all the evidence, the tribunal is sure that the complainant’s account is truthful and reliable. A tribunal may accept that account despite an honest witness giving materially different evidence. Findings expressed in terms of probability, such as considering it unlikely that a witness saw the relevant incident, do not necessarily show that the criminal standard of proof was misunderstood.

The appellant appealed by way of case stated from the decision of the Crown Court at Middlesex, which had upheld his conviction by Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court for common assault. The alleged assault occurred at Green Park underground station and involved an employee of London Transport. The Crown Court accepted the complainant’s evidence but also accepted that an independent witness was honest, while finding that he had not seen the beginning of the incident.

The appellant challenged the Crown Court’s factual reasoning, contending that the evidence could not support the conclusion that the assault had occurred and that the witness’s evidence had been wrongly rationalised. A proposed challenge concerning exclusion of evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was not pursued.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Crown Court’s findings were open to it and the conviction was not vitiated.
2. Fact-finding bodies may face difficulty in reconciling accounts from honest witnesses describing a brief and unexpected incident. The decisive question is whether, in the light of all the evidence, the tribunal is sure that the complainant is telling the truth. If so, the tribunal may rely on that evidence to convict, notwithstanding credible contrary evidence.
3. The Crown Court’s explanation of how the independent witness had missed the assault was inadequate in one respect. Its finding that he had seen an event shortly after the assault could not be correct. That defect did not invalidate the verdict because the court had plainly accepted the complainant’s evidence to the necessary standard and had treated the independent witness’s evidence as insufficient to displace it.
4. The finding that it was unlikely that the independent witness had seen the incident did not demonstrate a failure to apply the criminal burden or standard of proof. Probability and certainty may arise in relation to particular evidential issues. On the reasoning adopted, concluding that the complainant was right necessarily involved concluding that the witness had not seen the relevant part of the incident.
5. The questions concerning a stay were not answered because the argument had not been pursued. The court answered the remaining questions by finding sufficient evidence that the appellant had shouldered the respondent and that the independent witness had not seen the beginning of the incident.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated from the Crown Court at Middlesex.
• Crown Court at Middlesex: dismissed the appeal from Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court and upheld the conviction.
• Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant of common assault and imposed a conditional discharge for 12 months.