Crown Prosecution Service v Shabbir & Ors [2009] EWHC 2754 (Admin) (21 October 2009)
The magistrates were wrong to acquit the defendants; lack of consent can be inferred from evidence such as CCTV, and violence does not preclude conviction under section 4 Public Order Act 1986.
- Citation
- [2009] EWHC 2754 (Admin)
- Parties
- Claimant: Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant: Sajid Shabbir; Defendant: Mohammed Khan; Defendant: Waheed Rathor; Defendant: Abdul Raffique
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 21 October 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Common Assault, Public Order Offences, Consent in Assault, Criminal Procedure
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
Parties
Crown Prosecution Service
Claimant
Sajid Shabbir
Defendant
Mohammed Khan
Defendant
Waheed Rathor
Defendant
Abdul Raffique
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Is lack of consent a necessary ingredient of common assault or is consent a defence?
- 2 Can lack of consent be inferred from evidence other than victim testimony?
- 3 Does actual violence bar conviction under section 4 Public Order Act 1986?
Ratio Decidendi
The magistrates were wrong to acquit the defendants; lack of consent can be inferred from evidence such as CCTV, and violence does not preclude conviction under section 4 Public Order Act 1986.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Acquittals set aside; defendants found guilty of offences under section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 4 Public Order Act 1986.
- Observations regarding legal representation to be drawn to appropriate authorities.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment