SGQ, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal from a conviction following a Crown Court trial at Norwich. The Appellant was convicted on 29 January 2025 of causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm contrary to section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. On 28 March 2025 Judge Shaw sentenced the Appellant to nine months' imprisonment suspended for 24 months, with a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 15 days. The Appellant obtained limited leave to appeal; further leave on parts of grounds 2 and 4 was referred to the full Court for determination.

The substantive facts (as found or relied on at trial) were that V, the Appellant's ten-week-old son, sustained multiple fractures: a displaced spiral fracture of the right femur and metaphyseal fractures of both femora and both proximal tibiae. Expert evidence dated the injuries to multiple occasions in December 2018. The Appellant and her co-accused were arrested and denied causing the injuries. The prosecution relied upon expert radiological evidence, text messages, investigative notes and interviews. The defence case was denial and advanced that there was no evidence to show which adult caused the injuries and that the co-accused had opportunities to inflict them.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there was insufficient evidence such that the judge should have directed an acquittal at the close of the prosecution case (no case to answer).
2. Whether the trial judge improperly "entered the arena" by inviting the prosecution to change the case (invitation to amend the indictment) and thereby failed to remain neutral.
3. Whether the summing up was imbalanced and unfair to the Appellant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The prosecution had effectively conceded in opening that it could not prove which defendant inflicted the fractures, so only a conviction as an "allower" was possible; there was insufficient evidence that either defendant knew or ought to have known of a significant risk of serious harm.
• The clinical presentation of earlier metaphyseal fractures would not have put a non-perpetrator on notice (they cause short-lived grizzling), so an allowing conviction could not be supported.
• The judge improperly invited the prosecution to amend the indictment to allege the Appellant caused the injuries and did not revisit that stance when factual points (the Tesco trip) were shown to be true.
• The summing up was said to be imbalanced in a way prejudicial to the Appellant.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution's case was that the injuries were inflicted non-accidentally by one or both defendants and that in any event any carer ought to have been aware of the risk and failed to take reasonable steps to protect V (section 5 offence).
• The prosecution relied on the spiral fracture as the serious injury and earlier metaphyseal fractures as evidence of a pre-existing significant risk which could ground an allowing conviction.
• The prosecution did not have to prove which defendant was the causer; it was sufficient to prove that each defendant either caused or allowed the injury within the statutory framework.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analysed the case against the statutory elements of section 5 of the 2004 Act, noting two pivotal points: (1) the risk of serious physical harm required by s.5(1)(c) must be present at the time of the act causing the serious injury but can be pre-existing or arise from the act itself; and (2) subsection (2) provides that the prosecution need not prove whether a defendant was a "causer" or an "allower".

The Court examined the prosecution's Opening Note and the judge's summing up and found no inconsistency in principle: the prosecution ultimately relied on the spiral fracture as the serious injury and the prior metaphyseal fractures as evidence of a pre-existing risk for the purposes of an allowing conviction. The judge's directions reflected that approach and fairly framed the issues for the jury.

On the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court identified multiple, non-contradictory items that, taken together, could properly permit a jury so directed to convict the Appellant as either causer or allower: expert radiological opinion that fractures were non-accidental and dated to multiple occasions; clinical evidence of severe pain and prolonged crying corresponding to the acute spiral fracture; temporal evidence (photographs, calls/messages) indicating the likely timing of the spiral fracture after the Appellant's return from shopping; the Appellant's role as primary carer and resulting greater opportunity to inflict or to have been aware of prior injuries; and messages indicating stress in caring for two infants. The Court concluded that these factors gave an ample evidential basis for the jury to find guilt under section 5.

Regarding the judge's remarks about amending the indictment, the Court acknowledged that discussion between judge and counsel may sometimes appear to stray into the arena, but recorded that the judge refused the amendment and the case proceeded as a section 5 prosecution against both defendants equally; the eventual summing up did not single out the Appellant as the causer and applied the statutory test equally.

On the complaint about imbalance in the summing up, having reviewed a fuller transcript the Court found no justification for the criticism: the judge fairly summarised the prosecution and defence cases and accepted a correction made by defence counsel; there was no need to rehearse every defence point in full beyond a fair summary.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The Court concluded the Appellant's conviction is safe and dismissed the appeal.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant's conviction and suspended custodial sentence stand. The Court granted leave to pursue the remainder of ground 2 but refused leave on ground 4. The judgment does not purport to establish a new principle beyond its application of section 5 and existing authority.