Adenusi, R. v

A conviction for similar offending is not inadmissible on the issue of propensity merely because the offending occurred after the offence charged. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, later offending may assist in determining whether the defendant had the relevant propensity at the earlier time. Whether it does assist is for the jury, subject to the trial judge's continuing duty to secure a fair trial.

The appellant was convicted at Canterbury Crown Court of using a false instrument with intent and attempting to obtain a money transfer by deception. The prosecution case was that he had sought a loan using forged identity documents. His fingerprints were found on documents and a bank employee identified him.

Five days later, the appellant attempted to open an account at another branch using different forged documents and a false name. He had pleaded guilty to two offences of using a false instrument arising from that later incident. The Recorder admitted that material under sections 101(1)(d) and 103(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The appeal challenged the finding of propensity and the use of conduct occurring after the charged offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder's ruling could be overturned only if it involved an error of law or a factual conclusion that no reasonable tribunal could reach. Neither basis was established.

2. The later convictions did establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged. The later conduct involved the use of a driving licence and gas bill in a false name when dealing with the same bank. Its marked similarity to the charged conduct supported the Recorder's conclusion that it showed a tendency to unusual behaviour.

3. Under section 103(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, propensity to commit offences of the kind charged was a matter in issue. There is no rule of law preventing the jury from determining the defendant's propensity at the time of the charged conduct by reference to similar offending committed afterwards.

4. The temporal sequence affects evidential weight, not legal admissibility. It is for the jury to decide whether later offending assists it on propensity. The judge must nevertheless ensure a fair trial, including through the safeguard in section 101(3) of the Act.

5. Accordingly, the admission of the later convictions was lawful and the appeal had no merit.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: on 1 July 2005, before Miss Recorder Jones and a jury, convicted the appellant of using a false instrument with intent and attempting to obtain a money transfer by deception.