England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		Wednesday, 3rd October 2007

1. MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: These are renewed applications for leave to appeal in the case of Antonia Esna Pearson-Gaballonie against conviction and sentence, and in the case of Neil Edward Pearson against conviction, in both cases after refusal by the Single Judge.
2. The offences of which they were found guilty were in the case of Pearson-Gaballonie assault occasioning actual bodily harm (three counts). She received a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment on each concurrent. In respect of a count of false imprisonment and other counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and a count of threatening to kill, she received a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment on each count concurrent among themselves but consecutive to the sentence imposed on the first three counts plus the total sentence was one of 7 years' imprisonment. Pearson was convicted of aiding and abetting assault occasioning actual bodily harm and received a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment.
3. The applications for leave to appeal against conviction arise from the fact that the trial proceeded in the absence of Pearson-Gaballonie. So far as the facts of the offences are concerned, in each of them the victim was a girl referred to as Veronica who was the 24-year-old sister-in-law of Pearson-Gaballonie. She had gone to live with her brother and Gaballonie when she was aged 17. There came a time when her brother was posted elsewhere and eventually he and Gaballonie divorced. There were six children of the household and Veronica was expected to look after them and clean. At the time when Pearson moved into live with Gaballonie the victim alleged she was kept in the house naked against her will, beaten regularly by Gaballonie and had her hair cut off. The evidence given by the victim was that over a substantial period she was the subject of terrible mistreatment and prevented from leaving the house, hence the count of and conviction for false imprisonment.
4. The trial in the absence of Gaballonie occurred as a result of an apparent attempt at suicide. There had however been repeated adjournments of the trial and they are detailed comprehensively in paragraph 4 of the advice of counsel. It is relevant to point out that one of the adjournments occurred as a result of Gaballonie having taken drugs. The prosecution, when the matter was adjourned on that occasion which was in August 2006 alleged that her condition was self- induced and objected to an adjournment of the trial to enable it to proceed in her presence. On that occasion the judge warned that any further attempts to take medication so that Gaballonie was rendered incapable of following the trial would be taken as a deliberate attempt to avoid the trail. What the judge anticipated is indeed what occurred.
5. The judge, in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the repeated adjournments came to the conclusion that there was a deliberate attempt to avoid trial and indeed, if the trial further adjourned there would be a repetition of that conduct.
6. The Single Judge said this:

"In the light of repeated adjournments of your trial and the reasons for those adjournments the judge was fully entitled to conclude that you deliberately prevented yourself from standing trial. He concluded as again he was entitled to, that if he granted a yet further adjournment you would find some way of seeking to avoid a trial. He thereafter exercised his discretion to direct that the trial should proceed in your absence. You were represented. You had given instructions to your legal representatives. The Judge stressed to the jury that they should not speculate on why you were absent and should not draw any adverse inference from your absence. You advance no basis on which the Full court might conclude that the Judge exercised his discretion wrongly. In those circumstances I see no basis on which the Court might conclude that your convictions were unsafe."

We entirely endorse those remarks.

7. So far as sentence was concerned, the Single Judge said this:

"Over many days you treated you sister in law, a vulnerable young woman who was dependent on you, with the most grotesque and degrading cruelty. You repeatedly beat her, sometimes using weapons. You humiliated her by keeping her naked and you kept her a prisoner there. This was systematic, callous, brutal, wicked conduct demanding condign punishment. The total sentence of 7 years properly reflected such mitigation as was available to you when set against the grave offences you committed. It was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive in length."

8. In our judgment those remarks were entirely justified. There is no basis for any arguments that the sentence imposed on Pearson-Gaballonie was in any way excessive, it was entirely merited.
9. So far as Pearson is concerned the judge said this:

"As your counsel rightly recognises, any real prospects of successfully appealing your conviction depends on the result of the appeal of Pearson-Gaballonie. I have refused her application for leave to appeal. In consequence I also refuse your application."

For the identical reasons it follows that his renewed application must be refused as must hers. All of these applications are refused.