Rex v Shaun Nicholas Integrity – Court of Appeal – [2024] EWCA Crim 620 – Case Summary

Relevant for:

Criminal law practitioners, military law specialists

This case concerned an appeal against a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, where the appellant argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the issue of self-defense.

TLDR:

• Appeal against conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
• Appellant argued misdirection on self-defense by the trial judge.
• Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.

The appellant, Shaun Nicholas Integrity, was convicted on 23 March 2023 by a court martial for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was sentenced to 90 days' service detention, reduced in rank to Private, and ordered to pay £750 in compensation.

The incident occurred on 14 July 2022 during a barbecue at the barracks. The complainant, Craftsman Young, threw a sausage into the appellant's room, prompting the appellant to punch him in the face. The complainant suffered multiple fractures to his cheekbone and required medical treatment. The prosecution argued that the appellant's punch was unprovoked and unlawful.

The appellant claimed he acted in self-defense, believing the complainant was about to hit him. The trial judge directed the jury on both limbs of self-defense: whether the appellant believed he needed to defend himself and whether the force used was reasonable. The appellant's counsel did not object to these directions at trial.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge should not have directed the jury on the reasonableness of the force used, as this was not part of the prosecution's case. The Court of Appeal found no merit in this argument, noting that the issue was addressed during the trial and that the appellant's counsel had accepted the directions.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the conviction was safe and dismissed the appeal. The court emphasized that the trial judge's directions were appropriate and necessary given the circumstances of the case.

Legal representatives: Mr M Levy for the Applicant, Ms L Jones for the Service Prosecuting Authority

Judicial Panel: Lady Justice Macur, Mr Justice Jay, Mrs Justice Foster

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Crim 620