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

Where a court of summary jurisdiction is satisfied to the criminal standard that the defendant committed the offence, the prosecution has necessarily disproved an alibi inconsistent with that conclusion. A tribunal cannot accept identification evidence proving the defendant’s participation while acquitting solely because it is not satisfied by the defendant’s alibi evidence. Such reasoning is irrational. Where the necessary findings of fact have been made, the appellate court may remit the case with a direction to convict.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated from the North Yorkshire Justices, sitting at Scarborough Youth Court, which dismissed an indecent assault charge. The Justices believed the complainant’s and another witness’s identification evidence and accepted that the prosecution had proved the offence and the respondent’s identity. They nevertheless considered that the prosecution had failed to rebut credible alibi evidence and dismissed the information. The central issue was whether that reasoning justified the dismissal.

1. The appeal was allowed. The Justices were wrong to dismiss the information on the basis that the prosecution had failed to rebut the respondent’s alibi.
2. The burden remained on the prosecution to prove the offence and the respondent’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Justices’ direction that the prosecution had to disprove the alibi was correct.
3. However, once the Justices believed the identification evidence and were satisfied to the requisite standard that the respondent had committed the indecent assault, it necessarily followed that the prosecution had discharged the burden of disproving an alibi which placed him elsewhere at the material time. The contrary conclusion was irrational and fundamentally flawed.
4. The Justices had made the necessary findings of fact. The appropriate remedy was therefore to remit the case to them with a direction to convict, rather than order a retrial.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal by case stated and remitted the matter to the North Yorkshire Justices with a direction to convict.
• North Yorkshire Justices, Scarborough Youth Court: dismissed the indecent assault charge after accepting the identification evidence but concluding that the alibi had not been rebutted.