Aznanag & Anor, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service (Appeals Unit)

A fact-finding tribunal may reach reliable conclusions on the decisive issues despite contradictory or confusing evidence about peripheral matters. A clarification in a case stated may properly explain the tribunal’s reasoning. Self-defence does not impose a general duty to retreat. However, the possibility of retreat is a relevant factor when assessing whether the response was proportionate. Where police officers lawfully prevent forward movement, stepping backwards and leaving may be the only proportionate response to that intervention.

The appellants appealed by way of case stated against their convictions by justices sitting at Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court on 29 September 2014. The case concerned an allegation that one appellant assaulted a police constable acting in the execution of her duty during a tense police operation.

The justices described much of the evidence as contradictory and confusing, but later clarified that this concerned peripheral matters and that they had no doubt about the key trial issues. The appeal raised two questions: whether that evidential description prevented conviction, and whether self-defence was wrongly rejected because the appellant could have walked away.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The justices were entitled to clarify that their reference to contradictory and confusing evidence concerned peripheral matters. There was no rule limiting a case stated to words spoken when the verdict was announced. Trial tribunals commonly face substantial inconsistencies yet remain able to determine the decisive issues.
2. The justices’ reasoning on the precise factual dispute was less clear than it might have been, but their conclusion was sufficiently intelligible. They had evidently accepted that the police were lawfully preventing the appellant from moving forward and that there was sufficient space for him to step backwards.
3. There is no general duty to retreat. Whether a person could have retreated is nevertheless a factor relevant to proportionality under Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 76(6A), read with section 76(3).
4. The justices did not impose an unlawful duty to retreat. They concluded that, if the officer was lawfully stopping forward movement, the appellant had no right to push past her and that grabbing her arm and causing pain was unnecessary. Stepping backwards and walking away was, on the facts found, the only proportionate response.
5. The answers to both questions posed in the case stated were therefore yes.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The court answered both questions in the affirmative.
2. South Group Local Justice Area of London, Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court: The justices convicted the appellant on 29 September 2014 and subsequently clarified the meaning of their reference to contradictory and confusing evidence.