Hutchinson, R. v

A jury may convict on an initially reported account despite later retractions or contradictions, where it is entitled to find the initial account truthful and reliable in light of supporting evidence. A submission of no case to answer should fail where that evidence is capable of proving guilt.

In sentencing separate domestic assaults, aggravating circumstances may include the victim’s expectation of safety in the home, the use of an object as a weapon, and a later assault following an opportunity to reflect. Consecutive sentences may be proper for distinct offences separated in time, provided that totality is observed and aggravating features are not double counted.

The applicant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and common assault contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He received consecutive sentences of three years’ and six months’ imprisonment.

The complainant initially reported that the applicant struck her with a mobile telephone and then obstructed her breathing by pressing his thumbs to her neck. She later withdrew or contradicted material parts of that account, but the jury convicted after hearing the earlier accounts and supporting evidence. The single judge refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The applicant renewed both applications, challenging the refusal of a submission of no case, the courtroom layout, the categorisation and aggravation of the offences, and the consecutive terms.

1. Both renewed applications were refused. The conviction challenge was unarguable. The jury was entitled to accept the complainant’s initial account as truthful, accurate and reliable despite her later contradictory accounts. Her injuries, the emergency call and her evident distress provided support for that account. If accepted, it was clear evidence of guilt. The recorder was therefore right to reject the submission of no case to answer.
2. The courtroom-layout complaint was also unarguable. The position of the witness box did not prevent the jury from seeing the complainant or assessing her evidence. No objection had been raised at trial.
3. The sentence challenge was unarguable. The section 47 assault was a serious domestic assault on a partner, committed after she had gone to the applicant’s home expecting welcome and safety. The recorder was entitled to treat that context, the use of the telephone to cause injury, and the applicant’s record as aggravating features. There was no mitigation.
4. The common assault was correctly treated as one of greater harm and maximum aggravation. Obstruction of the complainant’s breathing made the throttling both frightening and dangerous. It occurred after she had received hospital treatment for the earlier injury and after the applicant had an opportunity to reflect.
5. The recorder did not double count aggravating features. He imposed a severe sentence for the second assault because of its own aggravation, then ordered consecutive terms because the offences were separated in time. He properly applied totality. Although the total of three years and six months was stiff, it was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused in [2017] EWCA Crim 1283.
• Central Criminal Court: Following trial before a recorder and jury, the applicant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault. He was sentenced to consecutive terms totalling three years and six months’ imprisonment.
• Single judge: Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused.