Page 151 - Magistrates Conference 2019

“A magistrate, though obliged to give reasons, is however not required to address every
submission that was advanced during the course of the trial as well as all of the evidence in

the case. The object of the giving of reasons is not to show how the magistrate arrived at his

or her conclusion, in a “watch me think” fashion. It is rather to show why the magistrate
made that decision: see paragraph 17 of the decision in R v R.E.M. As long as the reasons

show how the magistrate grappled with the substance of the legal and factual issues upon
which the decision turned, they will normally be sufficient: see paragraph 64 of the decision

in R v R.E.M.. The magistrate is not required to journey through every “hill and valley” of

all the credibility issues that arose in the case but rather, he must demonstrate that his mind
was applied to the more material issues that might have impacted on the credibility of the

witnesses: see The People (at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions) v Michael
McKevitt at paragraph above. There can be and there is no standardised, “magic formula”

for the giving of reasons. What must be kept uppermost in the mind of the magistrate is the
11
required “minimum content” of those reasons, as explained in the preceding paragraphs.”

Credibility

It can be difficult to express the magistrate’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility in
written reasons. A credible witness is truthful, accurate, confident, reliable and consistent in

giving evidence.

The following in a summary of the important principles to be borne in mind when assessing

12
credibility:
• Whether the witness is a truthful person or untruthful person?

• Is he though a truthful person telling something less than the truth on this issue or the

other way around?
• Even though he is a truthful person telling the truth, did he correctly remember the

conversation or events correctly?

• Has his recollection been altered by any unconscious bias or discussion with others?

11
Machel Montano, Kernel Roberts v Cpl. 12167 Sewdass Mag. App. No.108 of 2016 Yorke Soo Hon JA, Mohammed JA
at [157]
12 David Piper v Mark Hales [2013] EWHC B1 (QB) Simon Brown QC J at [34]; Onassis v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyds Rep
403 at 431
Page 20 of 26