Paul Growcoot [2018] EWCA Crim 3087

The appellant was convicted of possession of an offensive weapon and wounding with intent. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.

The appellant struck a male who was staying with a mutual friend several times to the head and body with something made of wood. The male suffered swelling to the back of his head, two small wounds to the base of his ear requiring suturing and a 5 cm linear would at the top of his scalp requiring 11 staples.

The appellant gave evidence at trial that he had acted in self-defence, picking up a stick from near a tree. The prosecution case was that he returned to the house having armed himself and with intent to wound the male.

The trial judge ruled that the complainant’s convictions for assaults were not admissible and also refused the prosecution’s application to adduce the appellant’s previous convictions.

The single judge granted leave on one ground that the judge erred in refusing to admit the complainant’s previous convictions, of which the appellant had been aware and had referred to in interview.

Held: there was a substantial conflict between the prosecution and the defence as to how the violence between the two men began. The appellant mentioned in interview his knowledge of the complainant’s previous violence and having served prison sentences. In those circumstances, the judge’s decision was incorrect. The convictions were of substantive probative value in respect of issues other than credibility, namely which of the two men had been the aggressor. The convictions of the appellant were properly admissible as well.

That being, so the issue was whether the conviction was then unsafe, and the Court concluded that it was. The conviction was quashed, and a retrial ordered.

(NB the appellant subsequently pleaded guilty to a s20 wounding).