Man found guilty of domestic abuse despite partner denying assault loses appeal against conviction

The appellant claimed that the sheriff erred in repelling a defence submission of “no case to answer”, but the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary ruled that the “combined evidence” of other witnesses was “sufficient” to entitle the jury to conclude that the woman had been assaulted and that the appellant was the perpetrator.

Lady Paton, Lord Brodie and Lord Turnbull heard that appellant Stephen Ingram was convicted after trial of the two charges against his then partner Melissa Edgar: charge 1 on the indictment was a charge of “behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm”, contrary to section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010; and charge 2 on the indictment was a charge of assault by striking Ms Edgar on her face – both of which offences were committed while he was on bail.

The court was told that the Crown had relied on the evidence Ms Edgar’s neighbours, who had heard the couple arguing in the early hours of 29 December 2016.

‘He’s battering her’

Maureen Baker, who lived on the ground floor of the property, immediately below the flat occupied by Ms Edgar on Kingsway East, Dundee, was woken at around 2am by the sound of the couple shouting and then heard Ms Edgar crying out for help and her children screaming. She also heard another neighbour, Ryan McCallum, pounding on Ms Edgar’s door and shouting “he’s battering her”.

Ms Baker later saw the appellant outside the entrance to the block of flats, but when she told him the police were coming he jumped into a car and drove off, before the witness then saw Ms Edgar in the stairwell with her face “bashed up” and eyes “puffy”.

Mr McCallum was also woken by the sound of the disturbance and on going out on to the mutual landing he heard Ms Edgar shouting for help. He called out to her and she replied, “Ryan, help me”. He formed the view that she was being attacked by a male inside the flat and although he did not see the appellant, on looking out of the window he saw the appellant’s red car driving off as the police sirens could be heard.

Other neighbours who gave evidence also spoke to Ms Edgar’s condition when she emerged from her flat. She was variously described as a being very distressed, sobbing and with blood visible on her nose and mouth, seeming to be in shock and largely unresponsive.

One of these witnesses, who lived on the same level as Ms Edgar, confirmed that it would be possible to drop down the outside of the building from one of the windows.

The Crown also relied on the evidence of police officers who attended, one of whom had identified the appellant as the male they saw jump into the driver’s seat of a red VW hatchback and speed off as they arrived at the scene with their vehicle’s blue lights flashing.

On attending Ms Edgar’s flat the officers noted signs of a disturbance, with upturned furniture and flesh blood splatters throughout the property, and also observed that Ms Edgar appeared to have been struck in the face as she was bleeding from her nose.

‘Insufficient evidence’

But Ms Edgar, who gave given evidence and explained that she had been in an “on-off” relationship with the appellant for around 10 years, denied that she had been assaulted and denied that the appellant had been present in her flat on the night in question.

She claimed that the sound of the couple arguing was her shouting at him over her smartphone, which was paired with her television loud speaker system, because he had gone on a night out in Newcastle without telling her.

She said the noise had woken her children, who began to cry, and when she went into their bedroom in the dark she fell over some toys and suffered a nose bleed.

The appellant appealed against conviction, on both charges, on grounds which argued that there was “insufficient evidence” of identification in connection with either charge and that there was insufficient evidence of an assault having occurred in relation to charge 2.

It was submitted that the sheriff erred in repelling the submission of “no case to answer” made in respect of both charges at the conclusion of the Crown case.

In reply, the advocate depute referred to the evidence identified above and submitted that it constituted an “overwhelming sufficiency of circumstantial evidence”.

Sheriff’s decision was ‘correct’

Refusing the appeal, the judges observed that the Crown was in the “slightly unusual position” of not being able to rely on the evidence of the person whom it alleged was the victim in each charge.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Turnbull said: “The evidence given by Ms Edgar exonerated the appellant of the charges. Had it been believed, or had it raised a reasonable doubt about the Crown’s case, then the appellant would have been acquitted. As it was, her evidence was plainly rejected.

“The question for the sheriff at the stage of considering the no case to answer submission, and for us now, is whether there was sufficient in the remaining evidence to entitle the jury to conclude that the charges were established. In considering that question the evidence must be taken at its highest for the Crown and in light of the most favourable inferences available…”

He added: “The combined evidence of the witnesses who heard a disturbance and heard Ms Edgar screaming, including screaming for help, the evidence of the state of her property as spoken to by the police, and the evidence of the witnesses who saw the upset and injured condition which she was in, was sufficient in our opinion to entitle the jury to infer that Ms Edgar had been assaulted.

“The evidence of the witness Ms Baker provided a source of evidence identifying the appellant by voice in Ms Edgar’s flat during the course of the disturbance…The appellant was seen outside the property shortly after attempts had been made to provide assistance, and he was observed to leave the scene rapidly.

“In our opinion these combined adminicles of evidence entitled the jury to conclude that the assault on Ms Edgar was perpetrated by the appellant and that he was the person responsible for committing charge 1. For these reasons we are satisfied that the sheriff was correct to repel the submission of no case to answer made, and the appeal against conviction on both charges must be refused.”