According to The Times today (14th October 2005) Recorder Oliver Sells QC described a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service concerning a matter appearing before him in the Crown Court as "deplorable, unprincipled and indefensible".
The case involved Barbara Allmey, aged 61, who had been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm against her daughter-in-law Vicky Allmey after allegedly scratching and clawing at her and biting her arm. The victim required hospital treatment and her arm was "left with a permanent scar". Some nine months after the event the Crown Prosecution Service decided to reduce the charge from an allegation of actual bodily harm to the lesser offence of "common assault".
The significance of this reduction in charge is that whilst the maximum sentence that can be imposed for common assault is merely six months' imprisonment, for actual bodily harm it is five years. When the Recorder refused to sanction the amendment of the indictment, the Crown merely offered 'no evidence' to the count of actual bodily harm, the inevitable consequence of which was that the charge had to be dismissed, and Mrs Allmey proceeded to enter a plea of 'guilty' to common assault. Sentencing Mrs Allmey for common assault, he the told the defendant, "This was at the top range of such common assault offences. The assault was extremely unpleasant, bordering on the vicious. Nothing could justify what you did." He proceeded to order Mrs Allmey to pay a fine of £800.00 and compensation amounting to £700.00. I know a little about such matters. Given that the victim suffered a "permanent scar", I think we are entitled to assume that the bite broke the skin. The proper charge was indeed one of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The Crown Prosecution Service stands by its decision, declaring, "The final decision was made by the reviewing lawyer following discussion with all parties." (my italics) So there we have it. There was a 'carve-up'. The prosecutors 'cut a deal' with the Defence. I think we can assume the Defence had good cause not to put their hands up to the ABH charge. The Crown seems to have thought so. I think we are entitled to trust competent and highly trained lawyers for the Crown and Defence to reach such decisions, after all they know more about the case than anyone else. The question by which I am bemused is this. If the maximum sentence for common assault is one of six months' imprisonment and "…this was at the top range of such common assault offences…" why did Mrs Allmey not receive a sentence of at least four months' imprisonment, rather than a financial penalty of £1,500.00?
I have little doubt that the sentence imposed by the Recorder was absolutely right, but this then begs a question. At the end of the day, the Recorder was not denied adequate sentencing powers to deal with the case. Was it really necessary for him to so disparage the Crown Prosecution Service when the final charge did do justice to the case?