Ukpabi v Crown Prosecution Service [2008] EWHC 952 (Admin) (18 April 2008)

Ukpabi v Crown Prosecution Service [2008] EWHC 952 (Admin) (18 April 2008)

The magistrates, by their remarks in open court, conveyed the impression that they had applied a standard of proof lower than the criminal standard, which required them to be sure of guilt before convicting. This impression was sufficient to quash the conviction, even though there was no finding that the magistrates had in fact applied the wrong standard.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 952 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Kingsley Ukpabi; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Standard of Proof, Assault on Police, Magistrates' Findings, Article 6 ECHR
Criminal Law Judicial Review Standard of Proof Assault on Police Magistrates' Findings Article 6 ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kingsley Ukpabi

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrates applied the correct burden and standard of proof in convicting the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the magistrates' remarks in open court created the impression that a lower standard of proof was applied

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrates, by their remarks in open court, conveyed the impression that they had applied a standard of proof lower than the criminal standard, which required them to be sure of guilt before convicting. This impression was sufficient to quash the conviction, even though there was no finding that the magistrates had in fact applied the wrong standard.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • Costs order made for recovery of travelling expenses
  • Order for repayment of £200 paid before legal aid was granted, subject to confirmation of court's power