Ryan Platt v. His Majesty’s Advocate [2023] HCJAC 25

Note of appeal against conviction:- The appellant was convicted after trial on indictment at the high court of a charge of assault to severe injury and permanent disfigurement by striking the complainer with a machete. In the trial judge’s charge to the jury he told them that the defence position was that the complainer was not a credible and reliable witness whereas the defence in fact relied upon the complainer’s account of how he came by his injury, namely, by falling on the machete. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that such a direction by the trial judge was a material misdirection and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The charge included the following:- “The defence say you shouldn’t draw such a conclusion, that you’re being asked by the Crown to speculate or guess and that’s not allowed. The defence says that Gordon Forbes is not a credible or reliable witness in relation to what is alleged to have taken place and that he did not identify the male at his door and that he may have fallen on his blade during a tussle with that male. So you’ll have to decide what facts do you find proved…”. Here the court considered that the trial judge had erred in suggesting that the defence maintained that the complainer was not a credible or reliable witness, however, it was made clear to the jury that the issue they had to consider was whether the complainer had in fact injured himself by falling on the machete. The court went on to state that the error did not amount to a misdirection when considering the whole charge, with the trial judge repeatedly telling the jury that the evidence was a matter for them and that for a conviction to result the injury had to be as a result of a deliberate assault rather than any careless or accidental act. The court considered that, in effect, the trial judge had merely misspoken and, in any event, there had been no miscarriage of justice given what was described as overwhelming evidence against the appellant including the appellant’s DNA on the handle and the complainer’s blood on the blade, the implausible evidence of the complainer and the admission attributed to the appellant of “Ya fucking deserved it ya prick”.