Christou, R. v

On a submission of no case to answer, the judge must stop the case only where the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, could not properly support a conviction. Where its strength depends on witness reliability or other matters within the jury’s province, and a possible view of the facts could support guilt, the case must be left to the jury.

A superficial cut or laceration may amount to actual bodily harm. The question is whether it is more than transient or trifling, which may properly be assessed by a jury in its factual context. Excessive force may cause only minor injury; the seriousness of the injury does not itself determine whether the force was reasonable.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Wood Green to common assault upon his mother. He was then convicted, by a majority, of assault occasioning actual bodily harm upon a police officer and received a community order.

The Crown accepted that the officer had initially acted unlawfully in handcuffing the appellant without first arresting him. The appellant was therefore entitled to use reasonable force to free himself. The prosecution alleged that he went beyond that entitlement by banging the officer’s head on concrete steps and attempting to throttle him, causing injuries including a superficial laceration to the chin.

On appeal against conviction, the central issues were whether the evidence of injury could amount to actual bodily harm and whether the Crown could prove that the appellant’s excessive force caused it.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was correct to leave the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to the jury.

2. The governing approach to a submission of no case to answer was that in R v Galbraith (73 Cr App R 124). The trial judge must stop the case if there is no evidence of the offence, or if the evidence at its highest could not properly support conviction. But where the strength of the evidence depends on witness reliability or matters generally for the jury, the case should proceed if a possible view of the facts could properly support guilt.

3. Shippey ([1988] Crim LR 67) did not qualify that test. It was only an example of a first-instance judge’s assessment of evidence in its particular circumstances and laid down no new legal principle.

4. The jury had to decide whether the appellant banged the officer’s head and tried to throttle him; whether he thereby used unreasonable and excessive force; and whether that conduct caused actual bodily harm. The Recorder’s directions adequately separated those questions and preserved the alternative verdict of common assault if actual bodily harm were not proved.

5. A superficial laceration may be more than transient or trifling. A cut remains a cut even if it affects few layers of skin, and a jury may properly conclude that it amounts to actual bodily harm. The fact that excessive force causes only a minor injury does not render the force reasonable. The evidence and the issues of causation were therefore matters properly left to the jury.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
• Crown Court at Wood Green The appellant pleaded guilty to common assault on 25 May 2011. On 14 July 2011, he was convicted by a majority of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and, on 4 August 2011, received a community order with a supervision requirement.