R v SAMANTHA MOORE – CASE THEORY AND TRIAL STRATEGY

CASE THEORY

This is a case of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm where the defence raised is self
defence. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove so that the jury are sure that the
defendant did not act in self defence and that her actions caused actual bodily harm.

The complainant and two other women were shouting aggressively while advancing towards
the defendant. When the complainant came close to the defendant, the complainant raised
her hand first with something glisten in her hand. At this point of time, the defendant perceived
an imminent and immediate threat from the complainant as she thought that the glisten thing
was going to be used to attack her.

The defendant acted reasonably, proportionately and rationally to the threat that the
complainant posed in that very moment. The defendant was in fear of her own safety thus she
defended herself by lashing out with the metal bottle in her hand. She forgot that the bottle
was in her hand. She had no intention to hurt or injure the complainant. The medical statement
would support the defendant’s account of self defence. This is because the injuries found on
the complainant were less severe. There was no displacement of bones or tissues. Also, no
surgery is needed. This supports the defendant’s account that she did not use any excessive
force but used a reasonable and proportionate force in defending herself.

The complainant sustained injury as a result which, in terms of the bruising and swelling
around her right eye, is consistent with the accepted actions of the defendant.

The complainant asserts in her statement that the defendant hit her with her clenched fist to
the right-hand side of her jaw before the hit with the metal bottle. However, the X Ray and
medical statement did not show any injuries near her right jaw. The hairline fracture to the
right-hand orbital bone was likely to be the injuries caused by the bottle since it was near the
eye. In relation to the first punch as alleged by the complainant, this was not witnessed by
anyone else at the scene such as Juliette Welch who was beside the defendant and the
referee of the match. This could severely impact upon the credibility of the complainant and
the weight to be attached to her assertion.

Prior to the incident, the complainant made comment towards Harry during the football match,
and she was becoming more aggressive in her tone. The defendant did lost her temper a little
and shouted inappropriate words towards the complainant as it was unfavorably to make such
comment to her child. This was supported by the referee that he heard someone shouted ‘take
him out’ before Jacob committed a foul on another boy who was possibly Harry. Despite the
complainant gestured towards the defendant, the defendant wanted to leave immediately after
the match as she needed to get back to work. Exhibit 1 suggests that the incident took place
on the defendant’s way to the carpark hence supporting the defendant’s account that the
complainant was the one who approached the defendant.

After the incident, the defendant was distressed and sobbing at a side. This shows that she
was remorseful for her action. The defendant also told the police officer that she was just
defending herself when she was arrested. The first reaction and statement made in the
immediate aftermath of the incident were unlikely to be fabricated by the defendant. The
defendant is unlikely to conjure up a false response within that short period of time. This further
supports the defendant’s account that she was acting in self defence in this unfortunate
scenario that was neither instigated, nor fueled, by her actions.
TRIAL STRATEGY – LESLEY-ANNE PIDCOCK

The complainant was holding a grudge against the defendant since the complaints of bully
between their children against the other few months ago. Since then, the complainant resented
the defendant as her child, Jacob had to move to another class but not the defendant’s child,
Harry. The complainant alleged that this seemed like Jacob was being punished. In addition,
the complainant made comment which aimed at the defendant through the phone call with the
teacher. This is further supported by the social media post made by the complainant illustrating
the hatred towards the defendant. As a result of the resentment, there was a clear reason of
why the complainant wanted to get the defendant into trouble.

The complainant was aggressor and agitated by shouting to the defendant during the
altercation. It is unlikely that the complainant’s first instinct was not to defend herself but just
put her hand up to protect herself after the alleged punch by the defendant to her jaw despite
the atmosphere was so heated at that point of time.

Referring to Exhibit 1, if the complainant was on the way to her car from her standing place
during the match, she did not need to pass through the starred place where the incident
happened. It makes much more sense that the complainant was the one who approached the
defendant while the defendant was heading back to the car park. The carpark and the incident
point were not at the same way from the complainant’s original position but were at two
different directions. The complainant would have to walk back if she was going to approach
the defendant while on her way to carpark. This suggests that the complainant was fabricating
her account hence undermines her credibility.

In terms of the complainant’s account, the following inconsistent evidence given are in favour
of the defendant:

• The complainant in her statement said that the defendant hit her to her right jaw and
then hit her again to her right temple area. It was found inconsistent with her EIC which
stated that both the hits were made towards her left side. This suggests that the
complainant was making up the story thus she was confused by her different versions
of story.

• The complainant did not mention that the defendant shouted ‘take this you bitch’ in her
statement. This suggests that there is inconsistency statement as the complainant was
trying to create a false impression of the defendant’s aggressive behaviour. This was
done to boost up her case with the untrue fact.

In evidence, it was apparent that the complainant fabricated her version of event. The
complainant alleged that the first punch to her jaw had caused her to stagger backward. This
suggests that the alleged punch should have been done with a significant force to cause her
stumbled backwards. Therefore, it should have caused at least some minor injuries on her jaw.
However, there were no relevant injuries found on her jaw that could be possibly resulted by
the alleged punched. Therefore, the complainant’s account is inconsistent with the injuries
sustained by her.

The complainant’s behaviour was aggressive from the beginning of the incident. The
discrepancies between the complainant’s statement and the evidence could undermines the
complainant’s credibility, suggesting that the complainant was telling lies about the incident to
justify her own behaviour.