DPP v Hopkins

On a prosecutor’s appeal by way of case stated against an acquittal, the Administrative Court will not interfere where the magistrates’ conclusion was reasonably open to them on the evidence. In a self-defence case, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving self-defence to the criminal standard once the issue is raised. Magistrates may acquit where inconsistencies mean that they cannot be sure that the complainant is telling the truth, even though the defendant admitted causing the injury and called no evidence. Appellate scrutiny must respect the distinction between legal error and a permissible evaluation of witness credibility.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated against the decision of Bristol Justices to acquit the defendant of assault contrary to section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The defendant and complainant shared a flat. The complainant alleged that he had assaulted her, while he accepted in police interview that he had caused the eye injury but asserted self-defence. The magistrates considered inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence about which eye was injured and which wall was involved. They concluded that they could not be sure what had happened. The central issue was whether a reasonable bench, properly directed, could reach that conclusion despite the defendant’s absence from trial and his admission in interview.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates’ conclusion that the prosecution had not disproved self-defence to the criminal standard was reasonably open to them and was not challengeable on an appeal by way of case stated.
2. Once self-defence was raised, the prosecution bore the burden of disproving it to the criminal standard. The defendant’s absence from trial and the absence of defence evidence did not remove that burden.
3. The magistrates were entitled to assess the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence. The mistake about which eye had been injured might, viewed alone, have raised a question about the soundness of their reasoning. However, the separate inconsistency about the wall was treated as an important feature of the case and as damaging to the complainant’s evidence.
4. The magistrates’ statement that it was unnecessary to comment on the complainant’s truthfulness reasonably implied that they were not sure she was telling the truth. Since the issue was whether the prosecution had disproved self-defence, that finding was sufficient to support the acquittal.
5. The legal adviser had correctly identified the legal issue but had gone beyond advising on law by expressing conclusions about the significance of the evidence. Those conclusions were matters for the magistrates alone. Nevertheless, the magistrates were properly equipped to decide the case, and their ultimate reasoning remained legally sufficient.
6. The court should not subject lay magistrates’ reasoning to an excessively minute analysis where their conclusion, properly understood, was one they were entitled to reach.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Bristol Justices acquitted the defendant. On the prosecutor’s appeal by way of case stated, the court answered the stated question in the affirmative and dismissed the appeal.