A MAN convicted of a violent street assault has failed in his attempt to overturn the verdict after the Royal Court ruled there was ample evidence to support his conviction and no unfairness in the original trial.
The court dismissed all grounds of appeal brought by Christian Marcus Ward, who had been found guilty of grave and criminal assault in the Magistrate’s Court following a one-day trial last November.
The case centred on an incident in November 2024 in Grands Vaux, where Ward attacked another man who was walking home with shopping.
Ward accused the victim of being a “woman-beater”, punched him in the face, and then knocked him to the ground before continuing the assault.
The defence claimed the victim had been the aggressor and that Ward acted in self-defence, insisting he had only pushed the man once.
However, the Magistrate accepted the evidence of the victim and a neighbour who witnessed the attack.
Ward appealed the conviction on multiple grounds, arguing that the decision was unreasonable, that there was insufficient evidence and that the trial had been rendered unfair by judicial intervention during cross-examination.
Dismissing the appeal in a judgment, the Royal Court stressed that its role was not to retry the case but to determine whether there was evidence on which the Magistrate could properly have reached the decision.
The court found that the prosecution case had been supported by consistent eyewitness accounts, a contemporaneous 999 call, and photographic evidence of injuries – including a cut forehead, black eye and bleeding ear.
Judges rejected the defence’s claims that the witnesses were unreliable due to distance, darkness or familiarity with the complainant, concluding there was “no reason to think” their evidence had been fabricated.
Ward also claimed that the Magistrate intervened improperly during cross-examination, allegedly undermining the defence.
But the Royal Court dismissed this, finding the intervention was limited and appropriate:
“The purpose of the Magistrate’s interventions were to clear up ambiguities and clarify the answers being given,” the judgment said.
The court added that the defence advocate still had the opportunity to challenge the witness and present the case fully.
One point of contention was whether Ward kicked the victim while he was on the ground, after a witness appeared to contradict herself under cross-examination.
The Royal Court said the most likely interpretation was that the witness still maintained a kick occurred – but found that, even if she had not, the outcome would not change.
Judges ruled that the punches alone were sufficient to justify the conviction, noting the alleged kick was not a significant element of the assault.
