Daniels v REGINA

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff and Defendant, a married couple, were jointly charged on an indictment containing five counts related to alleged abuse of their foster child, a toddler. The charges included sexual assault by vaginal and anal penetration, and child cruelty by neglect and assault causing serious head injuries. After trial at a Crown Court, Plaintiff was convicted of the sexual assault counts and Defendant acquitted of those. Defendant was convicted on a count of child cruelty by neglect for failing to obtain medical treatment, and also convicted of assault causing serious head injuries, while Plaintiff was acquitted on that count. Both appealed their convictions on limited grounds with leave of the full court. Plaintiff’s appeal on the sexual assault convictions was allowed based on fresh evidence. The court reserved judgment on Defendant’s appeal concerning the conviction for assault causing serious head injuries.

The injuries to the child included serious genital and anal trauma, facial injuries, and subdural and sub-arachnoid haemorrhages. Expert medical evidence suggested the head injuries were more likely caused by shaking rather than accidental impact. Both appellants gave evidence denying causing the injuries, with Defendant asserting the injuries were accidental and denying knowledge of the sexual injuries.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge gave an adequate direction to the jury on the elements of the offence of wilful assault or ill-treatment under section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, specifically regarding the necessity to prove the assault was carried out in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health.
2. Whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the meaning of "wilfully" as an element of mens rea for the offence, consistent with the interpretation in R v Sheppard [1981] AC 394.
3. Whether the failure to give such directions rendered the Defendant’s conviction unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge failed to instruct the jury that any wilful assault had to be committed in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health.
• The judge did not adequately explain the meaning of "wilfully" as required by the House of Lords’ decision in R v Sheppard, which clarifies the necessary mental element.

Appellee's Arguments

• The judge’s directions, though brief, were adequate in the context of the case, focusing on whether the injuries were accidental or caused by one or both appellants.
• The prosecution did not seriously argue that the injuries were caused without the necessary mens rea.
• Defendant’s evidence was that the injuries were accidental, and there was no suggestion she handled the child in a way that could have caused the injuries.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory offence under section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which requires proof that the defendant wilfully assaulted or ill-treated a child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health. The actus reus includes both the physical act and the objective likelihood of harm, which the judge failed to direct the jury upon adequately.

Regarding mens rea, the court examined the meaning of "wilfully" through the authoritative guidance in R v Sheppard. The court concluded that "wilfully" requires proof that the defendant either foresaw or was reckless as to the risk of causing unnecessary suffering or injury, not merely that the act was deliberate or voluntary.

The court considered whether the failure to direct the jury on these points rendered the conviction unsafe. It found that the jury would inevitably have been satisfied that the assault caused serious harm likely to cause suffering. Further, the defence case was that the injuries were accidental, not that the defendant acted without the requisite mental element. No evidence suggested the defendant shook the child in an innocent but misguided attempt to help. Therefore, no realistic possibility existed that the jury convicted without proper mens rea.

Consequently, the court held that the omission in jury directions did not render the conviction unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Defendant’s appeal against conviction on count 4 relating to wilful assault or ill-treatment causing head injuries.

The direct effect is that the conviction stands and the Defendant remains liable for the offence. The court did not establish any new precedent but reaffirmed the established principles regarding the interpretation of "wilfully" and the necessity of proper jury directions on both actus reus and mens rea elements in offences under section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.