England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		17 January 2008

1. MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: Anthony Anderson is aged 27. Following his plea of guilty to having committed an act outraging public decency before Hartlepool Magistrates Court he was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. On 26th October 2007 at Teesside Crown Court he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Fox QC to three years' imprisonment. He renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge.
2. The victim of his conduct was a woman known as Christine Lakinski who at the relevant time was aged about 50. She suffered from a number of complaints from birth including curvature of the spine which required her to wear a body brace throughout her teenage years. She also had learning difficulties.
3. In July 2007 she was living in Hartlepool. On 26th July 2007 she left the home of a family by the name of Shotton carrying laminate flooring which they had given her. She was seen to struggle down the street with the flooring. She rested it against the wall of a house before steadying herself on the windowsill. As she went to the door of the house she suddenly leant forward and her head struck the door. Her legs gave way and she slid to the floor. One witness, a Miss Brown, saw her head strike the concrete step with some force. Miss Lakinski came to rest face up, prone on the pavement. She appeared to mumble and to attempt to get to her feet.
4. Miss Brown was concerned and telephoned her partner Simon Whitehead who was at the applicant's home. Simon Whitehead, Scott Clements and the applicant came outside. Clements and the applicant had been drinking. The applicant walked over to Miss Lakinski. He returned to his friends laughing and said that she had pissed herself. He then went into the house and obtained a bowl of water which he then threw over Miss Lakinski. Whitehead and Clements believed they saw Miss Lakinski's head move slightly. The applicant was heard to say "Fucking hell, she hardly moved." Whitehead attempted to record the incident on his mobile telephone but there was insufficient memory. He began to delete files to make room.
5. Clements' girlfriend and her cousin arrived. They were told what had been going on. They expressed disapproval and went into the house.
6. Apparently urged on by the fact that Whitehead and Clements found his actions amusing, the applicant stated that he was going to urinate on Miss Lakinski. Miss Brown took her 3-year-old daughter inside the house to prevent her from witnessing that. Whitehead used his mobile telephone to record the applicant urinating over Miss Lakinski's prone body. She remained motionless throughout.
7. The applicant then returned to the house, collected a can of shaving foam and sprayed this over Miss Lakinski before pulling the pack of flooring over her. Again Whitehead recorded this on his mobile telephone. The applicant then took the mobile telephone from Whitehead and took a picture of Miss Lakinski himself. Miss Brown said the incident lasted about 30 minutes.
8. Miss Brown left the scene with the children and Whitehead. She was certain that Miss Lakinski was still moving her head at this point. The applicant and Clements went into the house and got ready to go out for the night. When they left 20 minutes later Miss Lakinski was still lying on the pavement. Up to this point no one had called an ambulance. At the behest of his girlfriend and her cousin, Clements approached Miss Lakinski and shook her. When she did not respond he telephoned for an ambulance. The group then went out for the night without waiting for an ambulance. At 10 pm paramedics arrived and found Miss Lakinski dead. A post mortem revealed she had died of natural causes, namely pancreatic failure.
9. When arrested at a club in Hartlepool the applicant said: "I saw her collapse on the floor and went over to see her. I went back a bit after and she was covered in foam." When interviewed he said the statement made on arrest was not true. He said he panicked. He knew Miss Lakinski lived nearby. He claimed to have seen her drunk in the past. The Shotton family said that Miss Lakinski had an occasional drink but would not have been drunk. The applicant said he had drunk a litre of wine and half a litre of sherry which had made him merry. He kicked the sole of Miss Lakinski's feet to rouse her. He threw water over her head and urinated over her chest, abdomen and upper legs. He said everyone was laughing. He then sprayed foam on the body before getting ready to go out for the night.
10. The judge in sentencing the applicant said that the conduct which was the subject of the charge brought shame on the people of Hartlepool, and indeed it had. The judge said that the applicant had provided the worst and last act of oppression and invasion of the victim's personality and privacy. The applicant had violated a woman in a dreadful way and the shocking nature of his acts over a prolonged period of time meant that a prison sentence of greater length than that indicated in a previous authority was appropriate. Notwithstanding the credit due for the guilty plea, the applicant did not have a good character to full back on. He had not previously been to prison but deserved the sentence which was passed. The previous convictions of the applicant were for driving offences, failure to surrender and the invasion of duty.
11. The single judge said this on the application for leave:

"1. This was a disgraceful offence which had many aggravating factors including that; (a) this offence was committed against a vulnerable lady who was lying helpless and dying on the ground; (b) you initially threw water over this lady before urinating on her; (c) not content with this, you went to collect some shaving foam, which you sprayed over this dying lady; and (d) you engaged in the appalling conduct for 30 minutes.

2. Even with your mitigating factors, this sentence falls within the appropriate bracket for this appalling and sustained behaviour."

12. Having regard to the detestable conduct which was the subject of this offence, those comments are comments with which we entirely agree. We have taken into account the letter of the applicant dated 7th January 2008, but looking at the case as a whole we are unable to reach the conclusion that this sentence was arguably excessive and in those circumstances the renewed application is refused.