QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE WHIPPLE
|- and -|
|DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION||Respondent|
MR L. CHINWEZE (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE:
"Both the complainant and Mr Satti gave evidence that the Appellant had struck the complainant to the back of her heard, using unlawful force. ... Both the Appellant and Mr Sooka denied that the Appellant struck the complainant. Both gave evidence that the Appellant had placed his hand on the back of the complainant's neck in a protective manner in order to move her back towards the house (the altercation took place immediately outside the Appellant's property)."
"6. Having heard the evidence, we were satisfied that the Appellant did lay his hands on the complainant against her will. We did not believe that this action was protective.
7. In particular, we found that the complainant gave a consistent account and did not deviate under cross-examination. By way of a numerical scale provided to us as a template for our written reasons, we assessed her evidence as a '1' meaning 'clear and consistent'.
8. We found that Nebir Satti's evidence appeared over-exaggerated. We assessed his evidence as a '5' meaning 'does not assist'.
9. We found that the Appellant's evidence was consistent but that he downplayed his part. We assessed his evidence as a '1' meaning 'clear and consistent'.
10. We accepted the evidence of Mr Faizal but it did not stand up to cross-examination. We assessed his evidence as a '3' meaning 'accepted notwithstanding inconsistencies'."
"1 = clear and consistent; 2 = inconsistent; 3 = accepted notwithstanding inconsistencies; 4 = implausible; 5 = does not assist; 6 = not credible."
"We are satisfied from all parties that the defendant did lay his hand on Sheena against her will. We do not believe the action was protective. This therefore counts as unlawful contact."
"Guilty. Given what is agreed by parties and our findings on matters in issue so that we are sure, we are satisfied on each essential element of the offence and find you guilty."
"Given our assessment of the Appellant and the defence witness, was it open to us to convict the Appellant of this offence?"
MRS JUSTICE WHIPPLE:
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: Thank you both very much. Mr Chinweze?
MR CHINWEZE: Yes, thank you, my Lord and my Lady. There is the matter of costs. I don't know if the court has seen a schedule provided by the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: We have seen a schedule which----
MR CHINWEZE: With an appendix.
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: Yes. I will just remind myself. It covers your work over four hours.
MR CHINWEZE: Yes. Incorporated within the hourly rate, and this is where the case of Eshiski(?) I can't quite pronounce, comes in. That hourly rate includes the administrative support and overheads, as you would have in a private firm; I put it that way.
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: Yes.
MR CHINWEZE: I provided my learned friend with a copy of it on 2 October; that (inaudible) cost of the Crown solicitor.
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: And that is the limit of the claim?
MR CHINWEZE: Yes, yes, indeed.
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: It doesn't actually include anything for your attendance here today.
MR CHINWEZE: It does not and that perhaps is -- that is an oversight on my part. I don't seek to claim it.
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: No. Well, that is a very proper approach, thank you.
Ms Parker, is there anything you want to say about the costs?
MS PARKER: Simply to say this, my Lord, that in light of the court's finding that forms of this nature may naturally give rise to some confusion, I would invite the court to consider reducing that sum. That is as far as I seek to challenge it.
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: Yes. Thank you. (Pause).
We are against you, Ms Parker, on this. The point you make would have greater force if the only remedy open to the appellant was to come to this court. But there was, of course, another avenue of appeal available to you. We therefore make this order: that the appeal is dismissed; the appellant to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of £916.
Anything else, Ms Parker; Mr Chinweze?
MR CHINWEZE: No, my Lord.
MS PARKER: No, thank you, my Lord.
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: May I repeat our grateful thanks to you both. We both felt, if I may say so, that your respective presentations of the case on each side were a model of their kind.
MR CHINWEZE: Thank you.
MS PARKER: Thank you.
Transcribed by Opus 2 International Ltd.
(Incorporating Beverley F. Nunnery & Co.)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
This transcript has been approved by the Judge.