Riley v Director of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 06, 2006, [2006] EWHC 1796 (Admin)

Resolution Date:July 06, 2006
Issuing Organization:Administrative Court
Actores:Riley v Director of Public Prosecutions



Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 1796 (Admin)




Royal Courts of Justice


London WC2

Thursday, 6th July 2006

B E F O R E:


- - - - - - -






- - - - - - -

Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of

Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited

190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - -

MR P WEATHERBY (instructed by Howells, Sheffield) appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT

MR I MULLARKEY (instructed by CPS Barnsley) appeared on behalf of the RESPONDENT

- - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T 1. MR JUSTICE WILKIE: This is an appeal by Liam Riley by way of case stated against the decision of the Barnsley Magistrates sitting on 1st December 2005, which concluded that Mr Riley was guilty on 26th March 2005 at Barnsley of using towards another threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence would be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, whereby that person was likely to believe that such violence would be used or it was likely that such violence would be provoked; that offence being contrary to sections 4(1) and 4(4) of the Public Order Act 1986.

  1. Mr Riley, having been convicted of that offence, he being a person of previous good character, was sentenced to a community punishment order of 100 hours, bound over to keep the peace for two years and was required to pay £250 costs. Mr Weatherby, who represents Mr Riley, says that he is instructed that the 100 hours of work pursuant to the community punishment order has in fact been completed, though there is no direct evidence before the court that that is so.

  2. The magistrates have, in their case stated, indicated the facts which they found. This was a somewhat unusual case because the defendant did not seek to put forward any positive version of events because he claimed, and indeed there was medical evidence to support his claim, that he suffered from a memory disorder and he claimed that he had no memory whatever of the events of that evening. Therefore there was no contest in relation to the evidence presented by the Crown, insofar as it was able to place evidence before the court.

  3. The facts found by the magistrates were as follows, as set out in paragraph 2 of the case stated:

    "(a) A minibus had been arranged to take the appellant, his friends and his brother to Barnsley town centre at approximately 11.20 pm on Friday 25th March 2005.

    (b) On the CCTV footage we were shown the man wearing a pink shirt was the aggressor.

    (c) The man wearing the pink shirt moved forward with his fists raised and punched another man before he was punched.

    (d) The man wearing the pink shirt ended up injured on the ground and had blood all over his face.

    (e) A pink shirt with blood stains down the front was recovered from the appellant's father's home by a police officer on 27th March 2005 [I interject at this point to indicate that Mr Weatherby says, and it is not in dispute, that the pink shirt was not recovered to the extent that it was before the court or was available for any forensic evidence to be forthcoming].

    (f) On 26th March 2005, the appellant woke up in Barnsley District General...

To continue reading