Offer of No Evidence for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

Our client faced one count of ABH, said to have been committed in unusual circumstances. The complainant in this matter was seen on CCTV footage and reported by members of the public to be carrying an unregistered firearm in the street. The complainant stated that our client was drunk and jealous of his musical career, and so punched him in the face, causing him to become unconscious.

Our client stated this was not true. Though CCTV footage showed the alleged punch, he stated this was a pretend punch and they were play-acting. However, after this, he stated that he did get into a verbal altercation with the complainant and punched him because the complainant showed him the firearm and he felt threatened.

We submitted a section 8 application to obtain disclosure about the complainant’s previous convictions and conduct that evening. Once obtained, we drafted representations for the Crown to reconsider the decision to prosecute. We submitted that, in the unusual circumstances of this case, there was served and disclosed evidence that supports our client’s account and raised public interest factors tending away from prosecution. The first of these points relied on the undisputed facts of this matter: Mr Matta was carrying an unregistered firearm, namely a pistol, when he was not authorised to do so that evening. It is therefore submitted that our client might understandably feel threatened in circumstances where public safety was at significant risk.

We then relied upon various items of used and unused evidence that suggested the complainant, in addition to carrying the weapon, had behaved drunkenly and aggressively throughout the evening. We argued this supported our client’s defence and reasons for acting in pre-emptive self-defence. We argued that many factors tending towards prosecution were not present: for example, there was little chance of repeated or escalating offending as these circumstances would surely not arise again. We argued that although the needs of the complainant must be considered, in this case, the complainant appeared to be dangerous to the public rather than vulnerable.

Prosecutors must also consider the impact a prosecution will have on the community. In the very unique circumstances of this case, we submitted that perhaps the public would not be served by a prosecution in this matter, as our client was a member of the public who, on his account, was threatened with a deadly weapon before acting in self-defence.

We relied on the Crown Prosecution Service guidance released in light of Covid-19, in submitting that also the delay in prosecuting this case was prejudicial. The backlog of cases had become overwhelming, such that there was a delay of over two and a half years between the alleged offence and trial.

The case continued to trial, but the Crown offered no evidence on the first day. Our client was incredibly relieved, having had the proceedings and threat of custody hang over him for so long.

Phoebe Coleman was the solicitor with conduct of this case. She instructed Justin Yang of Crucible Law.