Sandra Dennie v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2018] HCJAC 67

Note of appeal against conviction:- The appellant was indicted and proceeded to trial at Lanark Sheriff Court in relation to the following charge:- “on 11 January 2017 at ... you... did assault Carol Anne Connolly... and did repeatedly punch and kick her on the head and body and strike her head against a glass vivarium and repeatedly strike her on the body with glass to her severe injury and permanent disfigurement”. During the course of the trial evidence established that the appellant attacked the complainer in the kitchen and living room of the locus in Rigside. During the course of the struggle between the appellant and the complainer a glass tank and wine glasses sitting on a table shattered and the complainer sustained a laceration to her arm and a deep cut to her leg. The jury found the appellant guilty of an assault but deleted “and strike her head against a glass vivarium and repeatedly strike her on the body with glass”. The appellant appealed against her conviction the contention being that the jury’s verdict was perverse/inconsistent by making the deletions. It was submitted that by making the deletions they had the jury must have decided that the appellant did not assault the complainer with glass and, as such, the words “to her severe injury and permanent disfigurement” should also have been deleted. On behalf of the Crown it was submitted that there was nothing inconsistent in the verdict as the injuries had been caused during the course of an ongoing assault and it was open to the jury to hold that the injuries suffered by the complainer were as a result of an assault by the appellant. Here the court refused the appeal. The court stated that in circumstances where a person is assaulted during which is physically forced again a glass object which shatters, or falls against the object after being assaulted, the perpetrator is still liable for causing the injuries. In the present case the court considered that the evidence was clear that the injuries suffered by the complainer were a direct consequence of being assaulted by the appellant and there was no inconsistency with the verdict returned by the jury.