Stephen Ingram v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2018] HCJAC 16

Note of appeal against conviction:- At Dundee Sheriff Court the appellant was convicted on indictment of two charges:- (1) behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, contrary to section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 whilst on bail; and (2) a charge of assault by striking his partner on the face whilst on bail. The appellant appealed against his conviction on both charges it being contended that the sheriff erred in repelling the submission of ‘no case to answer’ made in relation to both charges at the conclusion of the Crown case there being insufficient evidence of identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of both charges and there being insufficient evidence of an assault having taken place in relation to charge 2. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence of an assault having taken place within the locus. Whilst the sheriff had referred to the cases of Healy v Vannet 2000 SCCR 35 and Dewar v HMA [2017] HCJAC 31 in which there was a single source of evidence of assault on the complainers and the issue was whether there was corroboration of the single source, in the present case the complainer gave evidence which was wholly exculpatory and there was no direct evidence of an assault having taken place. Whilst there was evidence which pointed to a disturbance having taken place which had resulted in the complainer being distressed and injured there was no evidence upon which it could be inferred that the distress and injuries resulted from a deliberate physical attack with evil intent as is necessary for a crime of assault. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the voice identification evidence of a witness, Ms Baker, was uncorroborated and evidence of the appellant in the vicinity of the locus in the aftermath was insufficient. The Crown relied on the evidence of witnesses who heard a disturbance and heard the complainer screaming including screaming for help, the evidence of the state of her property as spoken to by the police, and the evidence of the witnesses who saw the upset and injured condition which she was in which provided sufficient evidence of an assault having occurred. In relation to the issue of identification, the Crown sought to rely upon the evidence of Ms Baker who identified the appellant by voice in the complainer’s flat during the course of the disturbance and Ms Baker also recorded the events on her phone during the course of the disturbance. Police officers who attended the locus identified the appellant who had jumped into his car and sped off after Ms Baker told him the police were coming. Here the court refused the appeal. The court noted that the evidence of the complainer had clearly not been believed and it had been rejected. The court in taking the Crown case at its highest at the close of the Crown case pointed to the various adminicles of circumstantial evidence referred to which, individually need not be incriminating and may be open to one interpretation, but provided a concurrence of testimony which entitled the jury to conclude that the complainer had been assaulted and it was the appellant who was responsible for the assault and the disturbance.