Isichei, R. v

Evidence of a previous conviction may be relevant to identification as a connecting circumstance without being evidence of a propensity to commit the charged offences. Its limited relevance must be clearly explained to the jury, including any factual condition upon which that relevance depends.

Even if evidential rulings were erroneous, convictions remain safe where the disputed evidence was only supportive, the core identification evidence was strong, and adequate directions limited any prejudicial use. Evidence that may be hearsay can be admitted in the interests of justice where it forms part of a coherent and probative sequence of events.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court of two assaults occasioning actual bodily harm and robbery arising from an attack on two students in Manchester. The prosecution case depended principally on identification evidence, including a video identification, CCTV images and the appellant's connection with two premises visited before the attack.

The trial judge admitted a previous conviction for importing cocaine as evidence relevant to identification, rather than propensity. He also admitted evidence that an unidentified man had telephoned a person called Marvin before the group went to a club. The appellant challenged both rulings and appealed against his concurrent five-year sentence for robbery.

The central questions were whether the evidence was properly admitted and, if not, whether either error rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

2. The previous cocaine-importation conviction had been admitted as a possible connecting factor on identification. It was not admitted as evidence that the appellant had a propensity to commit robbery or assault. The trial judge had correctly confined its possible relevance to a finding that an assailant had referred to cocaine, and had directed the jury not to use it as propensity evidence.

3. The court considered that the directions were adequate. More importantly, even if there had been error in the admission or treatment of that conviction, the convictions were safe. The evidence was only a minor supporting strand. The prosecution's core case comprised a positive video-identification, supporting evidence from the second complainant, the appellant's connection with the relevant premises, and CCTV evidence. The conviction was old and concerned a different type of offending. The jury's acquittal on a further robbery count also showed that it had considered the evidence separately and analytically.

4. The trial judge might have been wrong to conclude that the reference to Marvin was outside the statutory hearsay regime. However, it was plainly admissible under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in the interests of justice. It formed part of a common-sense sequence of events capable of linking the person who arranged entry to the club with one of the later assailants.

5. The five-year robbery sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The sentencing remarks were properly understood as imposing a sentence from the date imposed, concurrently with the balance of the recalled sentence, rather than retrospectively. Time already served was directed to count towards sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence: [2006] EWCA Crim 1815.

• Crown Court: on 6 October 2005, before Judge Steiger QC and a jury, the appellant was convicted of two assaults occasioning actual bodily harm and robbery. On 21 October 2005 he received concurrent sentences of one year for each assault and five years for robbery, concurrent with a sentence already being served.