Stark, R. v

A jury may find causation proved despite expert evidence expressed as a qualified medical opinion, where the whole of the evidence supports the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. A judge need not rehearse all evidence in summing up. Under Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, rule 25.14 requires a summary only to the extent necessary to address the issues for decision. The omission of a short summary of expert evidence will not make a conviction unsafe where the issue was clearly left to the jury, the evidence was recent and counsel had addressed it.

The appellant was convicted at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The prosecution alleged that his single punch caused the complainant to fall heavily and unprotected onto the pavement, producing serious head injuries.

He appealed against conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of causation, the direction on lawful force, and the Recorder's failure to summarise the forensic pathologist's evidence. He also renewed applications for leave on further conviction grounds and against sentence. The central issues were whether the evidence permitted a safe finding that the appellant caused the serious injury, and whether the summing-up rendered the verdict unsafe.

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed. There was evidence on which a properly directed jury could be sure that the appellant's punch caused the complainant to fall onto the pavement and thereby caused the serious injury. The complainant had been able to walk and engage in a further altercation after the earlier incident. The eyewitness described a forceful, unprotected fall followed by unconsciousness, and the forensic pathologist attributed the serious injuries to such a fall.
2. The pathologist's recognition that medical science could not provide absolute certainty, and his assessment of a high probability that the injuries resulted from the later incident, did not require the judge to stop the case. Causation was a matter for the jury on the whole evidence. The medical opinion, together with the eyewitness evidence, was capable of proving causation to the criminal standard.
3. The Recorder's direction adequately addressed the appellant's case. It correctly explained that the use of force could be lawful where used in defence of oneself or another, or where reasonable for the prevention of crime. The further direction given after counsel's submissions sufficiently covered the issues raised by the defence.
4. Rule 25.14 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 requires a judge to summarise evidence only to the extent necessary. A judge should ordinarily remind a jury of the salient issues and, save in the simplest cases, summarise relevant evidence in a balanced way. The Recorder could usefully have summarised the pathologist's evidence, but the omission did not make the conviction unsafe. The trial was short, the evidence had been given the previous day, counsel had addressed it, and causation had been clearly identified as an issue for the jury.
5. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused. Although the 18-month sentence was at the top of the available range, it was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2016] EWCA Crim 850.
2. Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames — on 4 September 2015, convicted the appellant of inflicting grievous bodily harm and imposed 18 months' imprisonment.