British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons >> DENNIE, APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION BY SANDRA DENNIE AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2018] ScotHC HCJAC_67 (26 October 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2018/[2018]_HCJAC_67.html
Cite as: [2018] ScotHC HCJAC_67, [2018] HCJAC 67, 2019 SCCR 16, 2018 GWD 36-447
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page 1 ⇓
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
Lady Paton
Lord Drummond Young
Lord Malcolm
OPINION OF THE COURT
[2018] HCJAC 67
HCA/2018/000153/XC
delivered by LADY PATON
in
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION
by
SANDRA DENNIE
Appellant
against
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
Respondent
Appellant: Keenan (sol adv); Paterson Bell, Solicitors
Respondent: Farquharson QC, AD; Crown Agent
26 October 2018
[1] The appellant was charged with the following offence:
“on 11 January 2017 at [an address in Rigside], 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”.
The offence was said to have been committed while on bail.
Page 2 ⇓
2
[2] The evidence at the trial established that the appellant attacked the complainer in the
kitchen and living room at that address. In the living room was a glass spider tank
positioned on a table, and wine glasses left on the floor. In the course of the struggle
between the appellant and the complainer, both the glass tank and the wine glasses were
shattered and the complainer sustained a laceration to her forearm and a deep open cut to
her leg.
[3] When returning their verdict of guilty the jury deleted the words: “and strike her
head against a glass vivarium and repeatedly strike her on the body with glass”.
[4] In this appeal, Mr Keenan for the appellant submitted that the jury’s verdict was
perverse or at least inconsistent. The deletion of the above words demonstrated that they
must have concluded that the appellant did not assault the complainer with glass.
Accordingly the words “to her severe injury and permanent disfigurement” should be
deleted.
[5] For the Crown, the advocate depute contended that the verdict was neither
inconsistent nor perverse. The injuries had occurred in the course of an ongoing assault.
The jury were entitled to conclude that they were caused by the assault.
[6] We have no difficulty accepting the Crown’s submissions. The fact that an assault
took place was accepted. As the sheriff narrates in paragraph 11 of her report (noting the
evidence of Ms Gemmel):
“The appellant attacked [the complainer]. She flew for [the complainer] and started
punching and kicking her to the head and body. The fight took place in the kitchen
and in the living room… A big glass spider tank sat on the table in the middle of the
living room. The appellant and the complainer were grabbing each other and
throwing each other about. They fell onto the glass tank and then onto wine glasses
which were on the floor.”
Page 3 ⇓
3
[7] In our opinion, if a person is assaulted, and as a result is physically forced against a
surface or object made of glass which breaks or shatters, causing lacerations, the assailant is
responsible for those injuries even if he did not actually strike the complainer with an object
made of glass. Similarly, if a person is assaulted, and as a result falls against or comes into
contact with such a surface or object and suffers lacerations, the assailant is again
responsible for these injuries.
[8] It was suggested by Mr Keenan that the verdict could only have been returned if the
libel included a reference to the assault occurring when the parties were struggling or rolling
about on the floor, or words to that effect. There is no merit in that submission. The
evidence was clear. The injuries were sustained while the complainer was being assaulted
by the appellant, and were a direct consequence of the assault. There was no need for the
libel to be amended in the manner suggested.
[9] We are not therefore persuaded that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent or perverse.
The appeal is refused.