Ward was a renewed application for judicial review against the fairness of the claimant’s conviction for assault. In particular, it concerned the circumstances where a defendant is charged with ‘common assault’ and that charge then proceeds on the basis of a battery. The material facts of this case, leading to the charge of common assault, are not available in the judgment at the time of writing. The transcript merely provides that Craig Ward (W) ‘was involved in an altercation with a number of other men’ (at [2]) which led to his arrest and the charge of common assault. This lack of factual matrix is likely intentional here given that they are in no way relevant to the judicial review claim, or to the safety of his conviction. The focus, in terms of background information, is on how the trial proceeded against W. Initially, W was charged as follows:

中文翻译：

---

“一般说明”：将电池纳入普通攻击的一般指控：R（根据 Ward 的申请）诉 Black Country Magistrates' Court [2020] EWHC 680 (Admin)

Ward 重新申请司法审查，反对索赔人对袭击罪定罪的公平性。特别是，它涉及被告被指控犯有“普通攻击”罪，然后该指控是基于殴打而进行的情况。在撰写本文时，判决书中未提供本案的重要事实，导致被控共同攻击。笔录仅提供了克雷格沃德（W）“与其他一些人发生争执”（在[2]），导致他被捕并被控普通攻击。考虑到它们与司法审查要求或他的定罪安全无关，因此缺乏事实矩阵可能是有意为之。就背景信息而言，重点是对 W 的审判是如何进行的。 最初，