McCubbin, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

An appeal by way of case stated must raise a question of law, not merely challenge factual findings. Magistrates need not recite the criminal burden and standard of proof in formulaic terms. Their reasons may be brief if, read in the context of the evidence and trial, they show that the correct standard was applied and explain why the prosecution case was accepted. A detailed summary of the evidence may supply the necessary context. The Administrative Court should remain alert to factual challenges presented as errors of law.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated after conviction by Sutton Magistrates’ Court for assault. The magistrates imposed a conditional discharge, compensation and costs. The case stated questioned whether they had applied the correct burden of proof, given their reliance on inconsistencies in the defence evidence and the alleged absence of consideration of inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.

The central issues were whether the magistrates’ reasons disclosed a legal error and whether their reasons were sufficient to demonstrate that the criminal burden and standard of proof had been applied.

1. Appeal dismissed. The question posed by the case stated was answered in the affirmative. The claimant’s conviction and the magistrates’ factual findings were not disturbed.

2. The issues before the magistrates were factual. The claimant accepted that, if the correct burden and standard of proof had been applied, the evidence entitled the magistrates to convict if they accepted the essential prosecution evidence and rejected the essential defence evidence.

3. The magistrates were plainly aware of, and purported to apply, the criminal burden and standard of proof. It was unnecessary for them to use an express formula or incantation. The case was materially different from Evans, (2001) EWHC Admin 369, where the language used had created the impression that the balance of probabilities might have been applied.

4. Reasons given by magistrates may be succinct. Read with the detailed evidence recorded in the case stated and the circumstances of the trial, the reasons showed that the magistrates rejected the essential defence case and accepted the essential prosecution case. They identified the crucial issue as whether the complainant had been punched or had fallen, and explained why they were sure that he had been punched.

5. The principle identified in R v Harrow Crown Court ex parte Dave, [1994] 1 WLR 98, namely that an appellant should know the basis on which the prosecution case was accepted, was satisfied. The reasons were sufficient to inform the claimant of the basis of conviction.

6. The Administrative Court should be astute to detect attempts to dress up challenges to factual findings as errors of law in case-stated proceedings. A rehearing before the Crown Court was available, but the claimant had chosen the case-stated route. Costs were ordered in the sum of £800, payable within 56 days.

• Sutton Magistrates’ Court: The claimant was convicted of assault and received a conditional discharge, compensation order and costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The question posed by the case stated was answered in the affirmative.