D, R (on the application of) v Stratford Youth Court

At the close of the prosecution case, a submission of no case to answer fails where there is admissible evidence from which the court can infer both participation in violence and the defendant’s identity. The evidence need not be conclusive or the strongest case capable of being presented. Circumstantial evidence, including clothing descriptions and witness accounts, may provide a sufficient basis for continuing the case. Where that threshold is met, a youth court is entitled to refuse to state a case. The Administrative Court will not interfere merely because the magistrates’ reasoning is open to criticism, if the decision to proceed was legally available on the evidence.

D was prosecuted in the Youth Court for common assault as part of an alleged joint enterprise involving four young people. She was acquitted of robbery but convicted of common assault. At the close of the prosecution case, the Justices rejected a submission that there was no evidence of her participation in violence.

The Justices later refused an application to state a case. On limited permission for judicial review, D argued that the Justices had relied on inadmissible hearsay, had made an impermissible identification by clothing, and had treated a co-accused’s evidence inconsistently. The central issue was whether admissible evidence provided a sufficient case for D to answer.

1. The application was refused. The Justices were entitled to refuse to state a case.
2. The relevant question at the close of the prosecution case was whether there was admissible evidence of D’s participation in the assault, rather than mere presence. The evidence of the victim and eyewitness described active participation by the second girl, including striking the victim with keys.
3. The identification evidence was capable of supporting the conclusion that D was the second girl. The witnesses’ descriptions, together with the evidence concerning the clothing of the four girls, allowed the Justices to infer that D was the girl wearing black and was the participant identified by the eyewitness. The absence of perfectly clear evidence about the clothing of the other girls did not make that inference unavailable.
4. The Justices were not required to accept or reject every part of the evidence of the co-accused as an indivisible whole. The criticism of their reasoning did not establish that their conclusion was legally impermissible. The case did not have to be particularly strong; it only had to disclose a case to answer.
5. There was therefore no need to consider the further procedural points concerning Sunworld. An order was made under Children and Young Persons Act 1933, section 39, prohibiting publication of anything likely to identify D.

• Stratford Youth Court: D was convicted of common assault and the Justices refused to state a case.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Crane J granted limited permission. The Divisional Court refused the application for judicial review and made a publication restriction order.