McMahon v Director of Public Prosecutions

A criminal conviction must be quashed where the magistrates’ reasons give an informed, neutral observer the impression that they applied the wrong burden or standard of proof. A tribunal deciding guilt must be sure of the defendant’s guilt. Where credible defence evidence directly contradicts the prosecution case, the tribunal must reject that evidence as untruthful or mistaken before it can safely convict. Magistrates cannot retrospectively change their reasons through a case stated after an appeal has been brought.

The claimant appealed by case stated against his conviction at Chester Magistrates’ Court for criminal damage. The prosecution alleged that he punctured the tyres of a car. The prosecution witnesses identified him near the vehicle, while the claimant and his witness accepted being nearby but denied the damage.

The magistrates described the defence evidence as credible in announcing the conviction, but later stated that they had regarded it as plausible rather than truthful. The central issue was whether the original reasons showed that the magistrates had applied the criminal standard of proof and whether their later explanation could cure the defect.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was quashed. The prosecution did not seek a retrial.
2. The magistrates had to be sure of the claimant’s guilt. Nothing less would suffice. Their words of adjudication gave an informed, neutral observer the impression that they had applied the wrong test.
3. The description of the defence evidence as credible was material, rather than merely an objection to form. If the claimant’s and his witness’s evidence was credible, the prosecution case could not have been proved to the required standard. The magistrates therefore had to reject that evidence, whether as deliberately false or mistaken, before they could be sure of guilt.
4. The later case stated appeared to change the magistrates’ reasons by recasting the defence evidence as merely plausible. Following Evans v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] EWCH Admin 369, magistrates were not permitted to change their reasons when challenged on appeal. At the least, justice had not been seen to be done.
5. The formal order was to quash the conviction. No consequential order for costs was made.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal by case stated and quashed the conviction.
• Chester Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant of criminal damage.