R v Curtis (James)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Pill |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Crim 123 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 200804169B1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 09 February 2010 |
[2010] EWCA Crim 123
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CROWN COURT
His Honour Judge Heath
Before: Lord Justice Pill
Mr Justice Bennett
and
Mr Justice Field
Case No: 200804169B1
Mr M Magee (instructed by Fraser Dawbarns) for the Defendant
Mr M Cranmer-Brown (instructed by CPS) for the Prosecution
Hearing dates: 13 January 2010
Lord Justice Pill:
On 10 July 2008 in the Crown Court at Lincoln before His Honour Judge Heath, James Daniel Curtis was convicted, by a majority, of putting a person in fear of violence by harassment contrary to section 4(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”) (count 1) and, unanimously, of causing danger to road users contrary to section 22A(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) (count 2). On 1 September 2008, he was sentenced on count 1 to a 12 month community service order with an unpaid work requirement of 120 hours. A similar order was imposed on count 2 with an unpaid work requirement of 60 hours, to run consecutively to count 1. Curtis was acquitted of counts of attempting to administer a noxious thing, theft and damaging property, on the judge's direction. He appeals against conviction by leave of the full court.
The appellant and the complainant, Donna Brand, lived together from the Spring of 2005 until August 2006. They were both police constables in the Norfolk Constabulary and crewed together. They bought a house together in July 2005. The appellant was separated from his wife and Donna left her husband in order to cohabit with him. He was under medication for depression following a serious road accident in March 2000 when he was involved in a pursuit and three people in the car pursued were killed. At times, he drank too much.
The prosecution was based on six incidents which occurred while the appellant and Donna were living together. There is no doubt that the relationship was a volatile one. It was alleged that the appellant followed a course of conduct in which he used or threatened violence against Donna which caused her to fear that violence would be used against her and that the appellant knew or ought to have known that his course of conduct would cause her so to fear. Count 2 involved a specific incident in which the appellant and Donna were travelling in a motor car.
The defence accepted that there were “a few sporadic incidents in the course of a volatile relationship in which neither the defendant nor Donna Brand behaved in an exemplary manner” but denied that there was any nexus or connection with the incidents which allowed them to be described as a course of conduct. He had not harassed her. A submission at the close of the prosecution case that there was no case to answer on harassment failed.
There were arguments because the appellant conducted long telephone conversations with his wife. Donna thought that he felt guilty about leaving his wife and said that he was jealous and possessive. His behaviour was bad when he had been drinking.
We summarise her evidence about the six incidents. The first incident (the stereo incident) was in November 2005. During a car journey the appellant sat in the passenger seat, very drunk and smoking. He kept dropping his cigarette and swore at Donna. He behaved in a bizarre manner, including opening the door of the moving vehicle. She was frightened that he would fall out and hurt himself. When they reached home, the appellant said his ex-wife was worth ten of her and otherwise abused her. Until then he had not been physically violent to her but he “palm heeled” her backwards twice towards the sofa. He also “man-handled” her. He turned the stereo on and she turned it off. She said that she wanted to stand up for herself and picked up a computer portable keyboard and threw it on the floor to show him that she was brave. She was frightened of him and showed him that she could be angry and could not be intimidated. She was shocked that he had laid his hands on her. She did not want him to see her as the little woman who could be intimidated. Eventually they went to bed together. In the following weeks, things were much better.
The second incident (the Baileys incident) occurred in March 2006, that is 3 to 4 months after the first incident. He complained that she had taken the last drop of his bottle of Baileys whereupon he became angry. She pulled the cigarette out of his mouth, threw it in the sink and said “all you think about is drink”. She apologised to him but he put his hand in an L shape against her throat. She punched him in the face. He pushed her. Her dog came in and bit him. He kicked the dog into the garden. Donna was on his back. He then pushed her and she fell hitting her head on the radiator. When she began to call the police, he smashed a glass over his head. He was bleeding from the dog bite and had a small cut to his head. She felt guilty about punching him when he had not punched her. They then went to bed. She bought him a new guitar because she thought he deserved it.
The third incident (the handbrake incident) occurred in April 2006 and needs to be considered in relation to both counts in the indictment. Donna collected the defendant at midnight when he was “really drunk”. Her account was that while initially he was in a good mood he became angry having spilled tobacco while rolling a cigarette. He started texting and she thought he might be texting another woman. When she was driving at about 60 miles an hour, he pulled the handbrake putting the car into a skid. She was crying and shaking but he thought it was funny.
A police expert witness, Mr Chance, stated that when a vehicle is travelling fast, application of the handbrake may cause it to spin through 180 º. However, that was highly unlikely with the vehicle being driven unless the footbrake was also applied. Tests on the particular vehicle would be required to test which of the versions of the incident was accurate.
In his account, the appellant said that he applied the handbrake after repeatedly asking Donna to stop the car. The car was travelling at 35 to 40 miles an hour. There was no danger. Her account was inaccurate.
The fourth incident occurred when they arrived home following the handbrake incident. He was angry and shouting at her and said she was pathetic and jealous. She threw some drink in his face whereupon he palm heeled her 3 times to the shoulders and held her dressing gown, pinching her skin underneath. He held her against the door causing bruising to her chest. She bumped her arm as they went through a door but that was not his fault. He poured a drink over her head but she said she should have expected that because her beer had gone over him. She was locked out and stayed the night at his parents' home. He was really apologetic on the next morning. She said she was still in love with him, she thought he was genuinely sorry. In cross-examination, she accepted that, when she had thrown beer in his face, he had not laid a finger on her.
The fifth incident occurred during a camping holiday in the Lake District in July 2006. They had a pleasant evening though he had drunk heavily. She asked him not to smoke in the tent because she was anxious about the tent catching fire. A gas bottle was nearby. The appellant's daughter, Abbey, left the tent for a while. In bed, Donna said that he made sure his elbows and knees were digging into her. She pushed him with the flat of her feet to get him off her and he rolled backwards off the bed. He then got on top of her and put his hands around her throat, she thought he was going to hit her. She was crying, frightened and upset. She and the appellant's daughter went home and she decided to put the house on the market. He was very apologetic and said he would stop drinking and wanted them to stay together.
The sixth incident occurred on 12 August 2006. Donna learnt of a suicide note another man had written and did not want to be in that position with the appellant. She wanted to separate because otherwise one of them would end up getting hurt. The appellant begged her not to go. At night, he woke her and she found that the house smelt of fumes, like petrol fumes. The fumes were from the engine of a power motor. She text the appellant's brother to come over and was frightened of what the appellant would try to do. She thought he had tried to hurt himself. However, she got into bed with him. While there was no force, she said she was frightened of his approaches. He was angry that Donna had phoned his brother and was by this time calm. She was shaking with fear though he did not behave in a violent, aggressive or threatening way. He said he would not hurt her and he fell asleep.
At the close of the prosecution case, and with a view to hearing submissions from the prosecution, the judge, as he put it, articulated his thoughts to assist prosecuting counsel. He related the complainant's evidence in detail referring to the “insecurity on both sides” and commented that “both were being somewhat childish”. The judge said that he could not see “how that fits into a course of conduct of harassment. It was a response, it seems to me, on the face of it, to her saying: 'I am sorry, but this relationship is now over'”.
The judge further commented that “it is not as though it is a deliberate course of repeated conduct on the part of a defendant. There appear to have been a series of domestic disagreements which have arisen. Neither may have acted in an exemplary fashion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Widdows
...of the section 4 offence, the need for a course of conduct which amounted to harassment. Reliance is placed on the decision of this court in Curtis [2010] 1 Cr App R 31 [2010] EWCA Crim 19 For the prosecution, Mr Cox accepted that it was not a classic or paradigm case of harassment. Howev......
-
David Neil Gerrard v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd
...gravity as to justify the sanctions of the criminal law”. 54 Simon J then referred to a number of other cases as follows: “133. In R v. Curtis (James Daniel) [2010] EWCA Crim 123, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) considered what constituted harassment, in a judgment of the Court giv......
-
Dowson (Bruce) & others v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police
...purposes of sections 1 and 3 will be whether the conduct is of such gravity as to justify the sanctions of the criminal law. 133 In R v. Curtis (James Daniel) [2010] EWCA Crim 123, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) considered what constituted harassment, in a judgment of the Court giv......
-
Marco Chiro(Appellant) v The Queen
...Act 1927 (SA), s 57. 19 (2015) 123 SASR 414 at 417 [12]. 20KBT (1997) 191 CLR 417 at 422. 21KBT (1997) 191 CLR 417 at 422–423. 22 See R v Curtis [2010] 1 WLR 2770 at 2775 [20]; [2010] 3 All ER 849 at 854; R v Haque [2012] 1 Cr App R 5 at 57 23 See R v Hoang (2007) 16 VR 369 at 389–390 [107......
-
A Critical Analysis of the Law Commission's Proposed Cyberflashing Offence
...child to make asexual communication.50It is argued that S.12 may not cover cyber flashing where a picture of flaccid43. R v Curtis [2010] EWCA Crim 123 [29].44. Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224, 225.45. Lang v CPS [2017] EWHC 3639 (Admin) [13]. In this case, the......
-
A Critical Analysis of the Law Commission's Proposed Cyberflashing Offence
...child to make asexual communication.50It is argued that S.12 may not cover cyber flashing where a picture of flaccid43. R v Curtis [2010] EWCA Crim 123 [29].44. Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224, 225.45. Lang v CPS [2017] EWHC 3639 (Admin) [13]. In this case, the......
-
Sticks, Stones and Words: Emotional Harm and the English Criminal Law
...should the law not recognise that persons have as much entitle-ment to psychic well-being as they do to physical well-being?136129 [2010] EWCA Crim 123, [2010] 3 All ER 849.130 Ibid. at [20].131 Ibid. at [32].132 Ibid.133 Indeed, such relationships are often characterised by a ‘cycle of vio......
-
Evidencing domestic violence*, including behaviour that falls under the new offence of ‘controlling or coercive behaviour’
...for a further12%and 5%respectively.’ See Burton, 2008.5. [1994] 1 WLR 689 (CA)6. [2006] EWCA Crim 11397. Section 1(1) and s. 48. [2010] 3 All ER 8499. [2001] Crim LR 31810. RvCurtis [2010] EWCA Crim 123.Bishop and Bettinson position to assess the likelihood of her own repeat victimisation a......