Guernsey Legal Resources

  Held: (1) It was open to the Magistrate to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant in part but nonetheless accept it in other material respects that justified relying on it to convict the appellant (R. v. Cairns, [2003] 1 W.L.R. 796, dicta of Keene, L.J. applied). Nor, if she had taken the complainant’s convictions into account in assessing her credibility, was it necessary for her to allude to them specifically in giving her reasons for judgment.

  (2) Further, the Magistrate had satisfied the requirement under the European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6, that she “indicate with sufficient clarity the grounds on which [she] based [her] decision” (Hadjianatassiou v. Greece (1992), 16 EHRR 219, applied) by going into considerable detail (over some six pages) in relation to the facts and the reasons for the decision. Indeed, it would have been sufficient to indicate the basis of the decision without using any elaborate form of words or going so far as to prepare a judgment as such (McKerry v. Teesdale & Wear Valley JJ. (2000), 164 J.P. 355, applied), since the requirement that the facts be set out adequately had been observed, enabling the appellant to understand the basis of the findings made and why, in consequence, he had been found guilty (R. (McGowan) v. Brent JJ., [2002] Crim. L.R. 412, applied).