Hurdower v Director Of Public Prosecution

In an appeal by way of case stated, a conviction is lawful where the magistrates’ findings, read as a whole, establish each essential element of the offence to the criminal standard. A finding that evidence is clear and consistent does not amount to an unequivocal finding that the witness is credible. Credibility includes honesty, accuracy and reliability, and may differ between parts of a witness’s evidence. Numerical categories on a template must be read in context and cannot replace a proper assessment of the evidence. Such categories are not comprehensive and may create misunderstanding if used as formal reasons.

The appellant was convicted by lay justices at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court of assault by beating, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The issue at trial was whether admitted physical contact with the complainant amounted to unlawful force. The justices recorded their assessment of witnesses using a numerical template and convicted the appellant. He appealed by way of case stated, arguing that the recorded assessments showed that the prosecution had not discharged the burden of proof.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The certified question was answered in the affirmative. The justices were entitled to convict.
2. Assault by beating required proof that the appellant intentionally or recklessly inflicted unlawful force. Contact was admitted, and the issue was whether the contact was unlawful. The justices stated that they were sure the appellant had placed his hand on the complainant against her will and rejected the explanation that he had acted protectively. Those findings provided an evidential basis for conviction.
3. The numerical assessment of the appellant’s evidence as clear and consistent did not establish that all of his evidence was accepted. The additional finding that he had downplayed his part had to be read in the context of the identified issue and was consistent with rejection of his account of protective contact.
4. The assessment of the defence witness as accepted notwithstanding inconsistencies likewise did not mean that all his evidence was accepted. The finding that his evidence did not stand up to cross-examination made clear that not all of it was accepted.
5. Credibility includes honesty, accuracy and reliability. Clarity and consistency may assist in assessing credibility but are not equivalent to it. A witness may be clear and consistent yet dishonest or mistaken, or may be unreliable on one matter while remaining credible on another.
6. The template was at best a limited aide-memoire. Its six categories were not comprehensive, did not provide a positive category for credibility, and risked encouraging an arithmetical or over-simplified assessment of evidence. The justices’ clerk was urged to consider urgently whether the form should be amended or its use restricted as a written statement of reasons.
7. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of £916.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): on an appeal by way of case stated, dismissed the appeal against the conviction imposed by Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court.
2. Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant on 30 November 2017 of assault by beating contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.