Brooks v Director of Public Prosecutions

Self-defence requires an honest belief that defensive action is necessary, assessed on the circumstances as the defendant honestly believed them to be. A defendant’s ability to retreat may be relevant evidence, but the absence of retreat does not itself determine the issue. On an appeal by way of case stated, the magistrates’ reasons must be read as a whole. The court should not isolate one paragraph while ignoring other findings that resolve the disputed issue.

Daniel Brooks appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by justices sitting at Brighton for battery contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The incident involved Brooks pushing Mr Wales, who was holding a walking stick. Brooks contended that he believed Mr Wales was about to strike him and relied on self-defence.

The magistrates found that the stick was held protectively, that Brooks did not honestly believe he was about to be hit, and that Brooks could have walked away. The central question was whether they had applied the correct legal test in deciding that the prosecution had disproved lawful self-defence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The question stated for the court was answered in the affirmative.
2. The magistrates had identified the two relevant issues: whether Brooks honestly believed, or may honestly have believed, that it was necessary to defend himself, and whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.
3. The magistrates expressly found that Brooks did not honestly believe that Mr Wales was about to hit him with the stick. That finding resolved the first part of the self-defence inquiry against him. The perceived threat was specifically an attack with the stick, and the magistrates found that the stick was held close to Mr Wales’s body in a protective rather than aggressive stance.
4. The magistrates’ reasons were not to be read by considering paragraph 5 in isolation. Although that paragraph referred to Brooks’s ability to walk away and did not repeat the finding about his honest belief, the reasons had to be read as a whole. The other findings supplied a sufficient basis for rejecting self-defence.
5. The court therefore found no error of law in the magistrates’ approach. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated dismissed; the magistrates’ conviction was upheld.
• Brighton Magistrates’ Court: Brooks was convicted of battery.