Key Facts
- •Damien Daniel Heaven was charged with intimidation, assault by battery, and criminal damage.
- •He pleaded guilty to criminal damage and was convicted of intimidation and assault after a trial.
- •The appeal concerned the intimidation conviction, arguing insufficient evidence to prove Heaven knew Ms Cosson assisted police.
- •The prosecution relied on Heaven's use of the word "snitch" and his silence in interview.
- •The defence argued "snitch" referred to Ms Cosson's complaints leading to Heaven's eviction.
- •Evidence suggested measures were taken to prevent Heaven from knowing Ms Cosson's police involvement.
Legal Principles
A submission of no case to answer should be accepted if the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is not capable of making a jury sure of the essential ingredients of the offence.
Case Law
A jury cannot convict wholly or mainly on the basis of an adverse inference from silence in interview.
Section 34, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
The court can reconsider sentence under section 4 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
Section 4, Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; intimidation conviction quashed.
Insufficient evidence to prove Heaven knew Ms Cosson assisted police; the use of "snitch" was equivocal and other evidence pointed away from his knowledge of her involvement. The adverse inference from his silence in interview was insufficient to support the conviction.
Sentence for assault by battery reconsidered and a concurrent three-month sentence imposed.
To mark the criminality of the assault, given it was the only sentence in respect of this victim, though this would not affect his overall prison term.