CO/10565/2006 
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 960 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION  
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2 

Date: Friday, 16 March 2007
 
B E F O R E:

LORD JUSTICE LAWS 

MR JUSTICE DAVIS 

- - - - - - -
H
(CLAIMANT) 
-v- 

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
(DEFENDANT) 
 - - - - - - -

Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - -

MISS R MARTIN (instructed by Levines) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
The defendant was not represented and did not attend
 
- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	MR JUSTICE DAVIS:  On 8 September 2006 at the Thames Youth Court before three justices the appellant, who, at the time of the events in question, was aged 14, and may be identified by the initial H, was convicted after a trial of assaulting a young person, who may be identified as M, and thereby occasioning actual bodily harm.  Subsequently H received a sentence consisting of a supervision order for 12 months and a curfew order for three months.  He appeals against conviction by way of case stated.  
2.	The background details are set out very fully and helpfully in the case stated.  The evidence given by M, who was at the time a student aged 18, was summarised at some length.  He described how he was attacked at some stage by various Asian boys and how he was struck.  He made references to various weapons being used and described how he fell to the ground.  He described also the nature of the injuries he suffered which included cuts and bruises.  
3.	Evidence was also given by two police officers who attended at the scene towards the latter part of events in question.  One such officer said, as recorded in the case stated, that he saw an Asian male running towards them with two other Asian boys running behind him and that one of the two boys - who was wearing a white baseball cap - grabbed hold of the first boy, who was M, by the collar and threw him to the ground.  It is common ground that the boy wearing the white baseball cap was H.  That officer went on to say that the first boy went to the ground although the officer could not remember how he fell.  His head hit the ground; he got up and the officer saw that he was bleeding from his head.  The officer could not say that he was bleeding before.  The officer then described how he got out of the vehicle and grabbed the youth who had thrown the first youth to the ground.  That youth who was then apprehended was of course H.  
4.	The other officer who attended the scene also described how he saw three Asians running, including one with a white cap.  He described how the first youth was swung forward, came over the kerb, fell down and he hit his head on the kerb.  The officer could not say what part of his head hit the floor.  Then he saw the first youth getting up and running past him towards the school.  Blood was running down his face.  It started to run down his hairline.  He did not have blood running down his face before he was forced to the ground but he did when he got up.  The officer also noted various cuts to the head of the victim M.  
5.	The appellant H gave evidence.  Amongst other things, he said that he only came along on the scene at the latter stages of the incident and had not been involved at all in  the first part of the fight when the victim M had been struck with a weapon.  According to him, when then he chased after him, the victim tripped over and fell backward before he, H, had a chance to touch him.  He denied touching or hitting M at all.  
6.	The justices then recorded that they had been advised that they had to be satisfied (a) that the defendant assaulted M, (b) that M suffered actual bodily harm and (c) that the actual bodily harm was caused by the assault perpetrated by the defendant.  That was impeccable legal advice.  There is no reason to think that the justices did not apply it.  
7.	The facts as found by the justices were then expressed as follows:
"(a) As regards the initial attack involving a metal bar and a metal box, we had heard no evidence linking [H] to this incident.
 (b) However, it was agreed that [H] was present towards the end of this incident and that he chased [M].
 (c) We found compelling the evidence of the PC and the PCSO, who both had a very clear view, that [H]  forced [M] to the ground and that his head struck the road.
 (d) We have heard evidence that [M] sustained a number of cuts and bruises to his head.  While many of these injuries clearly related to the earlier incident, we found it inconceivable that his striking his head on the road would not have caused actual bodily harm to [M].
 (e) S accepted that he was chasing [M] but stated that he never made contact with him, and that [M] tripped and fell backwards."
The justices said:
"(f) We did not find [H]'s account of events credible."  
The justices went on to say in terms:
"(g) ..... we did not believe [H]."
8.	The justices then went on to find the following facts of which they were satisfied so that they were sure:
"(a) [H] chased [M] with the intention of assaulting him;
 (b) [H] assaulted [M] by forcing him to the ground, causing his head to strike the road;
 (c) actual bodily harm was caused thereby."
9.	Various questions are posed for the opinion of this court.  In essence, the question posed was whether or not the justices were entitled to conclude that H caused M actual bodily harm at all.
10.	Miss Martin, who appears on behalf of the appellant today, submits, and she may be right in this, that the justices were ruling out any question of joint enterprise by reference to the earlier part of the incident.  She then goes on to say that there was simply no evidence to show that any  actual bodily harm was occasioned at the latter stage of the incident when, as was found by the justices, H was involved.  She submits that the justices were not entitled to draw such an inference.  She points out that the justices did not make any finding as to which particular injury had been caused by the alleged striking of the victim so as to cause him to fall to the ground and strike his head.  Miss Martin cites to us the decision of Chan Fook (1999) Cr.App.R 147.  However the references there about the ability to make inferences in the context of actual bodily harm cases were made in the context of allegations of psychiatric injury.  
11.	As it seems to us, the justices in this case were perfectly entitled to infer that actual bodily harm had been caused by H on the facts as found by them.  They had found that the appellant H had struck the victim M so as to cause him to fall to the ground and that he struck his head.  There is no doubt that M had suffered injuries.  It was not necessary in this particular case for the justices to identify which particular injury had been caused by this particular appellant H so long as the justices were satisfied that some injury resulting in actual bodily harm had been caused by the assault committed by H.  
12.	It seems to us, with all respect to Miss Martin's argument, that this appeal is completely without any basis.   The justices reached conclusions on the facts as found by them which were entirely open to the justices.  The justices were entitled to conclude that H caused M actual bodily harm by virtue of his assault.  All the questions posed are to be  answered in the affirmative.  So for my part, I would dismiss this appeal.
13.	LORD JUSTICE LAWS:  I agree.  I think this appeal was hopeless.
14.	MISS MARTIN:  The appellant in this matter has the benefit of a representation order.
15.	LORD JUSTICE LAWS:  Really?
16.	MISS MARTIN:  Yes.  I would ask that the usual order be made in  respect of costs. 
17.	LORD JUSTICE LAWS:  Yes.
18.	MISS MARTIN:  I am grateful.
---