Maillet, R v

A defendant who has received a caution has no automatic entitlement to a good character direction. The trial judge retains a discretion whether to give either the credibility or propensity limb of such a direction. An approach of telling the jury that the defendant has no previous convictions may be appropriate, but it is not compulsory.

In exercising that discretion, the judge may take account of the nature and relevance of the caution. A defendant who seeks to conceal a potentially relevant caution cannot insist, as a matter of law, upon the terms on which that concealment is presented to the jury.

Following a retrial in the Crown Court at Croydon, Menelik Maillet was convicted of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of 2.5 kilograms of cocaine. He was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.

Maillet denied knowing that his co-accused’s cooler bag contained cocaine. His credibility was therefore central to his defence. He had received a caution five years earlier for possession of cannabis for personal use. The trial judge declined to give a good character direction. Maillet appealed by leave, contending that the judge should have given both the credibility and propensity limbs of that direction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge had a discretion whether to give a good character direction where the defendant had received a caution. The judge had not exercised that discretion on a wrong basis.

2. The ordinary direction has two distinct aspects: the jury may bear the absence of previous convictions in mind when assessing credibility, and may also treat good character as relevant to propensity. Martin [2000] 2 Cr App R 42 showed an accepted means of dealing with a caution by giving the credibility limb, but it did not require that course in every case.

3. In a drug case, it was open to a judge to refuse a good character direction where the caution concerned possession of another drug, even though it was a less serious offence involving a lower class of drug. The defendant had chosen to keep the caution from the jury. He could not dictate the legal terms of that concealment and demand one or both limbs of a good character direction.

4. Any differing treatment of defendants in such circumstances did not amount to injustice. The conviction and sentence therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Maillet’s appeal against conviction was dismissed after leave to appeal was granted by Field J.
• Crown Court at Croydon — on 18 August 2004, following a retrial before His Honour Judge Macrae, Maillet was convicted and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.