QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE JACK
|THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS||(APPELLANT)|
|JAMIE MARK DIBLEY||(RESPONDENT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR A WILSON appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
"The justices were wrong to find the respondent not guilty of the offence, subject to appeal, in particular having found that the respondent used aggressive and threatening words and behaviour and was present as a member of the group whilst other members used racially hostile language is directed towards the victims and was jointly involved the justices were wrong in finding that the respondent did not thereby demonstrate hostility based on the victim's membership of a racial group."
"or intended that the others should be helped in demonstrating racial hostility towards the victims we were not satisfied that the respondent in his drunken state was aware of the racial hostility being expressed by the co-defendants towards the victim."
The appellant says that there was no evidential basis upon which the justices could have found the facts set out in paragraph 6(v)of the case. In particular, they say that there was no evidence upon which they could be satisfied
"that the respondent in his drunken state was aware of the racial hostility being expressed by the co-defendants towards the victim."
"Although the justices considered all your representations they did not take them all into account because as a general rule the case should contain only the facts found by the justices. The only exception to this is where one of the questions is whether there is sufficient evidence to support a particular finding of fact. Neither question in the present case falls into this category and it would be wrong to attach evidence (such as a video) to the case. Rule 81(3) of the Magistrates Court Rules requires that:
'the case shall not be so stated in evidence unless one of the questions is whether there was evidence upon which the court could come to its decision. Therefore, the video has not been appended to the case. "
There was a further paragraph which I do not need to read.