Bashir, R. v

A conviction may safely rest on a complainant’s earlier account despite a later retraction where the jury is properly left to assess the account’s truth and reliability against supporting evidence. Written witness statements may exceptionally accompany the jury where they are central to the issues and a clear direction prevents undue weight being given to their written form.

Where uncharged allegations of prior violence are before the jury, the judge should explain their limited status, the absence of supporting evidence where applicable, their denial, and the permissible use of the allegations. The omission of that direction will not render a conviction unsafe if, on the evidence as a whole, the appellate court is satisfied that the conviction remains safe.

The appellant was convicted at Reading Crown Court of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to his wife and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. The prosecution relied on the complainant’s original statements, which alleged an assault and a history of domestic violence. At trial she retracted those allegations, asserted that the statements were fabricated, and gave an innocent explanation for her injuries.

The judge treated her as hostile and admitted her original statements as hearsay. The jury took the translated statements into retirement. On appeal, the appellant challenged the refusal to stop the case, the provision of the statements to the jury, and the absence of directions about uncharged allegations of prior violence contained in the statements.

1. Appeal dismissed. The case was properly left to the jury. It was for them to decide whether they were sure that the complainant’s original account was truthful, accurate and reliable. Her subsequent retraction did not require the judge to withdraw the case, particularly given the evidence capable of supporting the original account.
2. Although providing written witness statements to a jury is not usual, it was proper in this case. The statements were central both to the truth of their contents and to the circumstances in which they were made. Their detail was material to the complainant’s credibility. The jury would have been seriously disadvantaged without them, and the judge gave a clear warning that their written form did not make them more valuable than oral evidence.
3. The general allegations of previous violence were not part of the indicted offence. In the absence of an application to admit bad-character evidence or agreement, they were inadmissible. Although the defence had agreed that the complete statements should be put before the jury for forensic reasons, the judge should have directed the jury that the allegations were unproved, denied, and could not by themselves justify conviction. The judge should also have explained the extent, if any, to which they could support the prosecution case.
4. That omission did not make the conviction unsafe. The original account contained compelling detail, and it was supported by the police evidence of the complainant’s injury and damage in the home. The court was satisfied that the conviction remained safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Reading: The appellant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.