Veysey v R.

For a section 24 offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, a noxious thing need not be capable of causing injury to health. The trial judge must decide whether the substance, in the quantity and manner shown by the evidence, could properly be found injurious, hurtful, harmful or unwholesome. If so, the jury decides whether it was noxious. A cupful of human urine from an unknown source thrown at a victim’s face may be unwholesome and therefore noxious.

Prisoner assaults on prison staff involving urine or faeces are generally serious. They ordinarily involve high culpability and serious harm to prison discipline and order. The usual post-trial starting point is two to three years’ imprisonment, with urine at the lower end and faeces at the upper end.

Three otherwise unconnected prisoner cases were heard together because each concerned “potting”: throwing or smearing urine or faeces on prison staff.

Veysey was convicted of three section 24 offences involving urine and a racially aggravated harassment offence. He sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. He contended that urine could not be a noxious thing and that the proceedings should have been stayed because of delay and the decision to prosecute rather than use prison discipline.

Beardshaw pleaded guilty after throwing a mixture of urine and faeces into an officer’s face. Munroe pleaded guilty after throwing urine into an officer’s face. Both challenged their consecutive sentences. The central issues were the meaning of a noxious thing under section 24 and the appropriate sentencing approach to such assaults in prison.

1. Disposition. Veysey’s applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused. Munroe’s application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. Beardshaw’s appeal was allowed only to correct an arithmetical error; his sentence was quashed and replaced with 30 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to his existing sentence.

2. Section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 does not confine a noxious thing to a substance capable of injuring health. Following Marcus [1981] 1 WLR 774, the court held that the relevant meaning includes a substance which is unwholesome. The judge must first decide whether the substance, in the quantity and manner in which it was administered, could properly be found injurious, hurtful, harmful or unwholesome. If it could, the issue is for the jury. A cupful of human urine from an unknown source thrown at a person’s face met that threshold.

3. There was no basis to stay Veysey’s prosecution. The governor’s decision to refer the repeated and serious assaults for prosecution, rather than impose the limited sanctions available under the Prison Rules 1999, was plainly justified. Although delay was unfortunate, Veysey identified no actual prejudice materially affecting his defence, bad faith or oppression. The trial process could address any genuine forensic difficulty.

4. The court gave sentencing guidance. These offences generally involve high culpability because they are deliberate, usually premeditated assaults on prison staff that are intended to humiliate victims and undermine prison discipline. Harm is serious even without physical or psychiatric injury because of the effect on victims, order, staff confidence and prison resources.

5. The usual post-trial starting point is two to three years’ imprisonment. Urine cases will generally fall towards the lower end and faeces cases towards the upper end. Relevant convictions, similar prison adjudications, actual injury, medical treatment, targeted grievances and hostility are aggravating. A consecutive sentence will usually be necessary, and totality ordinarily carries only minimal weight.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Veysey’s applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused. Munroe’s application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. Beardshaw’s sentence appeal was allowed only to correct an arithmetical error, and a consecutive sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment was substituted.

• Crown Courts. Veysey was convicted of three section 24 offences and a racially aggravated harassment offence and received a total of four years and six months’ imprisonment. Beardshaw pleaded guilty to a section 24 offence and received three years’ imprisonment consecutive to his existing sentence. Munroe pleaded guilty to a section 24 offence and received 16 months’ imprisonment consecutive to his existing sentence.