DANIEL HONE BABY ASSAULT IN BANBURY: JUDGE SLAMS PROSECUTION BLUNDERS

In a case that has sparked significant controversy and criticism of the criminal justice system, a judge has publicly condemned the prosecution's handling of a brutal assault on a 19-month-old girl by Daniel Hone, a resident of Banbury. The incident occurred last November, and the subsequent legal proceedings have revealed serious flaws in how the case was charged and prosecuted.

Judge Recorder John Hardy expressed his outrage over what he described as 'grotesque blunders' committed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). He criticized the decision to charge Hone with actual bodily harm (ABH) instead of the more severe offence of grievous bodily harm (GBH), which he argued was clearly warranted given the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted on the young girl. The judge emphasized that the injuries, which included bite marks and numerous bruises, indicated a sustained and savage assault that should have been classified as GBH from the outset.

Recorder Hardy did not hold back in his assessment, stating, 'How anyone with an iota of intelligence reading that catalogue of injuries, which is indicative of a sustained and savage assault committed on a little girl aged 19 months, can fail to spot that it amounts to GBH indicates to me that something is very, very wrong with the system... if it results in grotesque blunders such as this.' He further criticized what he called a 'robotic and mechanical' approach to prosecuting such cases, warning that this methodology was likely to have been replicated in other similar instances, thereby causing unjust outcomes.

The case came to light after the girl’s mother discovered the injuries the following day. The child was promptly taken to hospital, where she underwent two operations during a three-day stay to treat her injuries. Prosecutor Naomi Perry, who was not the lawyer responsible for charging Hone, confirmed that she counted 28 separate bruises and marks on the child's body, illustrating the severity of the assault.

Hone, who was found to be intoxicated and under the influence of cannabis at the time of the attack, was charged through CPS Direct—a system established in 2003 to provide charging advice to police via telephone. The decision to charge Hone with ABH rather than GBH was heavily criticized by the judge, who linked it to the broader policy initiative called 'Stop Delaying Justice.' Recorder Hardy expressed concern that this policy, despite its well-meaning intentions, had contributed to rushed and inadequate decision-making in this case, ultimately leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Hone admitted to the charges and was sentenced to three years in prison. However, Recorder Hardy remarked that, had Hone been properly charged with GBH, he might have faced a longer, possibly indeterminate, sentence for public protection. The judge lamented that the legal maxim 'justice delayed is justice denied,' rooted in the Magna Carta, was relevant here, as rushing cases or making hasty decisions on cheap charges undermined the pursuit of true justice.

The CPS has since responded to the judge’s criticisms, issuing an apology and explaining that the decision to charge Hone with ABH was influenced by the policies associated with 'Stop Delaying Justice.' A CPS spokesperson clarified that this initiative was led by the judiciary and did not influence the specific charge in this case. The police have also indicated that they will engage with the CPS in the near future to review the case and learn any lessons that might prevent similar issues from arising in the future.