The Court of Appeal has dismissed Daniel Hayden’s appeal against his conviction for assault causing harm, finding no error in the trial judge’s summary of the evidence or directions on self-defence.
The appeal concerned a conviction under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, entered on 24 March 2015 after a trial that began on 18 March. The offence related to an incident on 11 November 2012 involving taxi driver Mr Adio. The judgment says Hayden was a passenger in the taxi and that, outside it, he poured a drink over Adio and struck him in the face. Hayden denied the allegations. His account was that Adio caused the drinks to spill and hit him first, and that he responded with one punch in self-defence.
Two grounds were pursued on appeal. Hayden argued that the trial judge’s summary of the prosecution and defence cases was unbalanced, and that her directions on self-defence were legally wrong, including her refusal to make changes requested by defence counsel.
On the first ground, the Court of Appeal rejected requests to add detail about an alleged threat to kill and about medical evidence of a single injury to Adio’s eye. The defence had argued that the threat was relevant to Adio’s credibility because he drove past a Garda station, and that the single recorded injury was consistent with Hayden’s account of one punch. The appeal court said the requested additions were rightly refused. It stressed that a jury charge must be considered as a whole and is a summary of relevant evidence, not a list of every point either side wants included.
The court also rejected the challenge to the self-defence directions. It found that the trial judge had explained the relevant law comprehensively and that the jury’s questions and the further explanation they received did not indicate confusion. The court said the judge’s use of the word “provocation” could not have confused the jury about self-defence. It also found that references to section 18(7) of the 1997 Act, even if they went further than necessary, would not have led the jury to misunderstand the central issues.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge’s rulings were correct and dismissed the appeal on all grounds. The appeal judgment was delivered ex tempore on 28 February 2020.