R v CBU

The appellant, CBU, was convicted of two counts of common assault in domestic violence circumstances and appeals against his conviction and sentence. The appeal against conviction raises issues regarding the admissibility of certain statements and the trial judge’s summing up. The appeal against sentence contends that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge failed to properly consider the appellant’s demonstrated rehabilitation and mental health issues.

The court examined whether the trial judge was correct to exclude two statements, admissions 19 and 14, which related to the children’s relationship with the appellant. The appellant argued that the exclusion of these admissions was improper as they could have been used to show that the children were coached to give false evidence against him. The court found that the trial judge was within his discretion to exclude the admissions, even if technically inadmissible, as they did not pertain to the central facts of the case. Regarding the summing up, the court determined that the trial judge’s directions did not endorse a particular inference or misdirect the jury, and thus did not warrant a new trial.

The court also considered the grounds of appeal against sentence, which included the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge failed to consider the appellant’s rehabilitation and mental health at the time of sentencing. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the trial judge had appropriately considered the nature of the offences, the appellant’s personal circumstances, and the need for general deterrence. The court also found that there was no error in the trial judge’s approach to the sentence, and that the appellant’s arguments regarding rehabilitation and mental health did not establish that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.