R v Shaun Nicholas Integrity
[2024] EWCA Crim 620
R v Harry John Ward
26 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1310
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of assault, but the judge made a mistake in her instructions to the jury about who had to prove what. Because of this mistake, the conviction was thrown out. The prosecution wanted a do-over, but the judge said no because the man had already served his time and the restraining order against him was fine as it was.
Key Facts
- •Harry John Ward was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) following a trial at the Central Criminal Court.
- •The complainant was Ward's former partner.
- •The assault allegedly occurred during an argument in the complainant's bedroom.
- •Ward claimed self-defence.
- •The jury acquitted Ward on three other counts, including intentional strangulation.
- •The Recorder misdirected the jury in her written route to verdict document regarding the burden of proof in self-defence.
Legal Principles
In self-defence cases, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used was unreasonable (i.e., more than proportionate).
Judge's summing-up and legal directions (corrected after appeal)
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed, and the conviction on count 3 was quashed.
The Recorder's misdirection in the route to verdict document placed the burden of proving reasonable force on the defence, which was a clear error. While the judge made correct statements elsewhere, the route to verdict document was given undue weight and was not corrected despite the defence pointing out the error.
The Crown's application for a retrial was refused.
Considering the circumstances of the case (the sentence already served, the complainant's lack of strong objection to a lack of retrial, and the availability of restraining orders even without conviction), the court deemed a retrial inappropriate.