The Court of Appeal has dismissed Andrew Shannon’s appeal against his conviction for damaging a Monet painting at the National Gallery, finding that the conviction was safe and that the jury could follow instructions to disregard evidence about a separate hotel incident.
The judgment, delivered on 29 July 2016 by Mr Justice Edwards, dealt only with the appeal against conviction. Shannon’s appeal against sentence was not addressed. He had been convicted by a jury on 4 December 2014 of causing criminal damage and sentenced to six years in prison, with the final 15 months suspended.
The conviction arose from damage to Claude Monet’s *Argenteuil Basin with a Single Boat* at the National Gallery on 29 June 2012. The prosecution alleged the damage was deliberate. Shannon’s defence was that he had suffered a coronary episode, fallen and struck the painting accidentally.
The original indictment also included two counts concerning damage to paintings at the Shelbourne Hotel in January 2014. Before trial, the judge refused Shannon’s application to separate the incidents, allowing the prosecution to rely on what it described as system evidence. The Court of Appeal said that, at that preliminary stage and before evidence had been heard, the judge was entitled to find that the evidence could be relevant and sufficiently probative, including in addressing the defence of accident.
At trial, the judge directed acquittals on the two hotel counts. Shannon then applied to have the jury discharged from considering the National Gallery count, arguing that hearing the hotel evidence had made a fair trial impossible. The judge refused and instructed the jury repeatedly to disregard all evidence about the hotel incident.
The Court of Appeal held that the judge was right not to discharge the jury. It said discharge should be a last resort and noted that the two incidents were separated in time and place, with no overlapping witnesses. The jury had received explicit instructions, and both sides had urged it to follow them. The appeal court also noted that the defence had not raised requisitions challenging the wording of the jury charge.
The court rejected both grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal against conviction. Its decision did not determine Shannon’s separate appeal against sentence.