Payton, R v

Where a judge treats a defendant as being of good character for the purposes of the trial, the defendant must receive the corresponding good-character direction. A direction merely telling the jury not to hold minor previous misconduct against the defendant is inadequate where credibility is central. The jury must also be directed that the defendant’s credibility is unaffected by that misconduct and may be taken into account when assessing the evidence. The content and necessity of a character direction remain matters of judicial discretion, to be tailored fairly to the issues and circumstances of the trial.

The appellant was convicted at Wood Green Crown Court of possessing cannabis, a Class C controlled drug, with intent to supply, and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Cannabis was found in separately packaged bags with scales, packaging and cash. The appellant maintained that it was for personal use and gave an explanation, partly supported by other evidence, for the cash.

On appeal against conviction, he challenged the admission and treatment of the cash evidence, the direction concerning money laundering, and the absence of a full good-character direction despite his previous cannabis possession matters. He also raised concern about concurrent cash-forfeiture proceedings in the magistrates’ court. The central issue was whether the character direction made the conviction unsafe.

Disposition

1. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. Once the trial judge had directed the jury that the appellant’s previous possession matters should not be held against him because they threw no light on the issue, the appellant had to be treated as of good character for the trial.

2. Under the principles in R v Vye [1993] 97 Cr App R 134, a defendant of good character who gives evidence is entitled to an appropriate character direction. The judge should have told the jury that the appellant’s credibility was intact and undamaged by the admitted matters, and that this was relevant when assessing his evidence and explanations. The omission was a fatal misdirection. The Court followed the analogous reasoning in Heath unreported, 1 February 1994.

3. The Court rejected the other substantive grounds. The cash evidence was admissible because it was potentially relevant to an intention to supply, provided that the jury first rejected the explanation advanced for the cash. The prosecution was entitled to test that explanation in cross-examination. No fuller statutory definition of money laundering was required: the expression was relevant to the evidence and capable of being understood by the jury in its ordinary sense.

4. The content of a good-character direction is not mechanically prescribed by detailed guidance in cases such as Gray [2004] EWCA Crim 1074. The judge retains discretion over whether a direction is required in other circumstances and over its appropriate scope. The direction must fairly address the relevance of character to the particular issues.

5. No abuse of process or actual prejudice was established from the concurrent forfeiture proceedings. However, the Court stressed that proceedings under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 must not prejudice a fair criminal trial. Effective liaison between investigators and the prosecuting authority is essential, and appropriate steps should be taken where civil proceedings risk requiring a defendant to disclose a criminal defence prematurely.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against conviction and quashed the conviction.
• Crown Court at Wood Green The appellant was convicted on 30 September 2005 of possessing a Class C controlled drug with intent to supply and sentenced on 7 November 2005 to 12 months’ imprisonment.