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

On an appeal by way of case stated, the court may uphold a conviction where the evidence, viewed in the round, entitled the magistrates to find both that there was a case to answer and that the defendant was the offender. Errors in the stated case do not necessarily invalidate the conviction if the underlying evidence is sufficient and the errors have not caused material injustice. Circumstantial evidence may properly be assessed cumulatively, including the connection between the defendant and the relevant vehicle, recent injuries consistent with the alleged conduct, similarity of appearance and clothing, and flight when approached by police.

The claimant was convicted in his absence by St Albans Justices on 16 January 2006 of criminal damage to six windows of a Fiat Punto, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The justices stated a case after concluding that he was the person who caused the damage. The claimant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, relying on errors in the stated case, the absence of identification or forensic evidence, and the lack of expert evidence linking his finger injury to broken glass. The central issue was whether the evidence justified the conviction.

1. The appeal was dismissed in substance. The question stated by the magistrates was answered in the affirmative.

2. Although the stated case contained material errors, including an inaccurate account of the identification evidence, those errors did not prevent the court from determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

3. The evidence had to be assessed cumulatively. It included the connection between the white car and the incident, the claimant’s presence in that car, his recent finger injury, the justices’ entitlement to reject his account of how the injury was caused, the similarity between his appearance and clothing and the description given by the victim, and his flight when police approached the vehicle.

4. The justices were entitled to conclude that the injury was consistent with broken glass, even without medical or expert evidence. They were also entitled to attach weight to the similarity between the description and the claimant, notwithstanding the absence of a formal identification procedure.

5. Taken together, the evidence entitled the justices to find that there was a case to answer and to be sure that the claimant was the man who broke the windows. The claimant was ordered to surrender to Central Hertfordshire Magistrates’ Court within three clear days.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 16 October 2006, the appeal by way of case stated was dismissed in substance and the question posed was answered affirmatively.
• St Albans Justices: On 16 January 2006, the claimant was convicted in his absence of criminal damage.