A v Director of Public Prosecutions

On an appeal by way of Case Stated, the court determines the issues identified by the lower court on the facts found. New factual or legal issues that were not advanced at trial cannot ordinarily be introduced through that procedure; a Crown Court appeal, heard afresh, is the proper route. Evidence may be sufficient to establish lawful accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 where there is no evidence to the contrary. Self-defence fails where the defendant initiated the aggression and was not being attacked. Restraint by care-home staff may be justified to prevent injury where it is necessary and proportionate. Implied consent does not arise merely because conduct occurs in a residential children’s home.

A, aged 16 when the events occurred, was convicted in the Ealing Youth Court of three assaults by beating contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Two assaults involved staff members who restrained her after she tried to leave a children’s home. The third involved throwing a bottle at another member of staff.

On appeal by way of Case Stated, A challenged the lawfulness of her accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, the legality of the restraint, the rejection of self-defence, and the finding that the third assault was not covered by implied consent. The questions were whether the Justices were entitled to make those findings and convict.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Each question posed by the Justices was answered in the affirmative.

2. The prosecution had declined to seek an adjournment after the section 20 issue was raised at trial. The evidence relied on by the Justices was, just, sufficient to support their conclusion that A was lawfully accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The court did not decide the wider arguments about the lawful use of section 20 because those arguments had not been advanced below. In an appeal by way of Case Stated, the appellant could not rely on new issues based on the absence of evidence at trial. The proper route for such issues was an appeal to the Crown Court, where the case would be heard afresh.

3. The findings of fact showed that the only action taken before A’s first assault was Mr Mackay standing in front of the door to prevent her leaving. That was a modest infringement of liberty. A initiated the aggression, was not being attacked, and intentionally assaulted Mr Mackay and Mr Christensen before they restrained her. The Justices were therefore entitled to find that she had not acted in necessary and reasonable self-defence, allowing properly for her background and vulnerability.

4. The subsequent restraint was found to have been intended to prevent injury to A and the staff members. The Justices were entitled to regard it as necessary and proportionate under regulation 20 of the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015, and the staff could in any event act to prevent injury to themselves or A.

5. The court upheld the rejection of implied consent in relation to the bottle attack. It rejected the proposed analogy with sporting encounters and held that H v Crown Prosecution Service was not to be disregarded as inapplicable. The Justices were entitled to convict on that count.

• High Court (Administrative Court): [2017] EWHC 821 (Admin) — appeal by way of Case Stated dismissed; all questions answered affirmatively.
• Ealing Youth Court: convicted A of three assaults by beating on 3 February 2016 and later imposed a Youth Rehabilitation Order on 2 March 2016.