R v Shaun Nicholas Integrity

Where self-defence is raised, a tribunal should receive directions on both whether force was necessary and whether its amount was reasonable, unless the parties have clearly agreed that reasonable force is not in issue. A single forceful punch causing significant injury may make the reasonableness of the force a live issue.

A full and legally correct direction on reasonable force does not make a conviction unsafe merely because the prosecution primarily advanced the case as an unnecessary attack.

The applicant was convicted by a court martial of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, charged as a criminal conduct offence under the Armed Forces Act 2006 and contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He had punched a fellow serviceman once after the complainant threw a sausage into his room. The punch caused multiple cheekbone fractures.

The applicant maintained that he acted in reasonable self-defence. He renewed an application, following refusal by a single judge, for an extension of time to seek permission to appeal against conviction. His sole ground was that the Deputy Judge Advocate should not have directed the Board on the reasonableness of the amount of force used, because that issue had supposedly not been advanced by the prosecution.

1. The renewed application was dismissed. It was therefore unnecessary to determine whether time should be extended for an application for permission to appeal.

2. There had been no agreement between the parties that the degree of force used would be reasonable if the applicant believed that he needed to defend himself. The contrary assertion was unsupported. The issue had been explored in the evidence, including the force of the punch and the injury caused. Defence counsel had also addressed reasonable force in closing and had not objected to the proposed written directions.

3. In those circumstances, it was proper and necessary to direct the Board on the second limb of self-defence: whether the amount of force was reasonable. The applicant admitted delivering a punch that caused significant injury. It would have been unrealistic, and unsafe from his perspective, to omit an explanation that a person acting in the heat of the moment cannot be expected to assess with precision the exact force required.

4. The direction was full and correct. It did not render the conviction arguably unsafe, even if the prosecution also contended that the punch was an unnecessary attack rather than an act of self-defence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the renewed application following the single judge's refusal.
• Court martial: on 23 March 2023, convicted the applicant of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and imposed 90 days’ service detention, reduction to Private, and a Service compensation order of £750.