R v Crossman

The appellant was convicted of two counts of intentionally doing grievous bodily harm and subsequently appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The court was required to consider whether the trial judge's insistence that the appellant attend the view amounted to an error of law, and whether this prejudiced the appellant to the extent that a fair trial was impossible. The court also needed to determine whether the trial judge's direction to the jury on the definition of "grievous bodily harm" constituted a misdirection that led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court had to assess whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the appellant's pleas of guilty to other related charges.

The court found that the trial judge's insistence on the appellant attending the view did not constitute an error of law, nor did it prejudice the appellant to the extent of denying a fair trial. The court also concluded that there was no misdirection by the trial judge in defining "grievous bodily harm" for the jury. The court further determined that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive; however, the court did find that the sentences for the grievous bodily harm charges were excessive and varied them to 12 years' imprisonment each.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but leave to appeal against the sentence was granted. The appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentences for the grievous bodily harm offences were reduced to 12 years' imprisonment each. The court ordered that the appellant's sentences be served concurrently, with the altered sentences taking effect in place of the original 15-year terms.