United Kingdom / England and Wales High Court / EWHC 464 (Admin) / Henderson v. Crown Prosecution Service
Country
United Kingdom
Title
Year
Decision/ruling/judgment date
Incident(s) concerned/related
Related Bias motivation
Groups affected
Court/Body type
Court/Body
Key facts of the case
The appellant had been convicted for three offences of harassment and for three offences of racially aggravated harassment. Both sets of convictions concerned the same victims and arose from the same facts but the two offences had been characterised as alternatives. Despite having been found guilty of the underlying offences the court imposed no separate penalty for them.
Main reasoning/argumentation
The question for the court was what the proper course of action should be when a defendant is found guilty of a racially or religiously aggravated offence when they had been charged with an underlying offence arising from the same facts.
Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?
Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case
Defendants should not be convicted for both underlying offences and aggravated offences that arise from the same set of facts. The underlying offences should be adjourned sine die and the convictions should be based on the aggravating offences. Furthermore plea offers for underlying offences should not be accepted at the expense of aggravating offences.
Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case
The court held that, as a matter of principle, where there are two charges which are properly characterised as alternatives there should not be findings of guilt on both charges. Accordingly, in such circumstances a Magistrate should adjourn the trial of the underlying offences sine die. The appellate judge also held that in cases where a defendant is offering a guilty plea to the underlying offences but wishes to contest the aggravated offence, that plea should not be taken. The appeal was therefore allowed and the defendant’s convictions for the underlying offences were quashed.
Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details
"As a matter of principle where there are two charges which are properly characterised as alternatives (as were the charges in the present case) there should not be findings of guilt on both charges; and it is not open to a Magistrates' Court to make a finding of guilt on an alternative underlying offence having made a finding of guilt on the aggravated offence."