Valentine, R. v [2017] EWCA Crim 207 (27 January 2017)

Valentine, R. v [2017] EWCA Crim 207 (27 January 2017)

The conviction on count 2 was unsafe because the victim for the purposes of racial aggravation was not the victim of the underlying offence; the evidence did not establish distress to the son, only to Ms Moloney. The conviction for the aggravated offence was quashed and substituted with the basic offence. The conviction on count 1 was not tainted and was upheld.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Crim 207
Parties
Appellant: Toni Valentine; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; conviction on count 2 quashed and substituted; appeal against conviction on count 1 dismissed; sentence reduced.
Legal Topics
Racially Aggravated Offences, Religiously Aggravated Offences, Intentional Harassment, Indictment Amendment, Unsafe Conviction
Criminal Law Racially Aggravated Offences Religiously Aggravated Offences Intentional Harassment Indictment Amendment Unsafe Conviction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toni Valentine

Appellant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction on count 2 for racially aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress was safe given the indictment amendment and evidence
  2. 2 Whether the victim for purposes of section 28 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was correctly identified
  3. 3 Whether the conviction on count 1 was tainted by evidence from count 2

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction on count 2 was unsafe because the victim for the purposes of racial aggravation was not the victim of the underlying offence; the evidence did not establish distress to the son, only to Ms Moloney. The conviction for the aggravated offence was quashed and substituted with the basic offence. The conviction on count 1 was not tainted and was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; conviction on count 2 quashed and substituted; appeal against conviction on count 1 dismissed; sentence reduced.

Orders

  • Conviction on count 2 quashed and substituted with conviction for basic offence under section 4A Public Order Act 1986.
  • Sentence reduced to 9 months community order on each count, concurrent.