DPP v Hopkins

DPP v Hopkins

The magistrates were entitled to conclude that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence prevented them from being sure of what happened, and thus the prosecution had not disproved self-defence to the criminal standard.

Parties
Claimant: DPP; Defendant: Hopkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Way of Case Stated
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assault, Self Defence, Evidential Inconsistencies, Standard of Proof
Criminal Law Assault Self Defence Evidential Inconsistencies Standard of Proof

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DPP

Claimant

Hopkins

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Way of Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrates erred in acquitting the respondent due to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution discharged its burden to disprove self-defence beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrates were entitled to conclude that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence prevented them from being sure of what happened, and thus the prosecution had not disproved self-defence to the criminal standard.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.