Ullah, R. v

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a previous fraud conviction may be admitted as bad-character evidence where it is significantly probative of whether the defendant acted with guilty knowledge, rather than innocently. In an appropriate case, propensity and dishonesty may be closely connected aspects of that issue.

A deliberate and considered denial of prior dishonesty in a cautioned interview may give a false impression. The prosecution may seek a ruling to correct that impression before the interview statement has formally been put in evidence. An appellate court will be slow to interfere where the trial judge has directed himself correctly and has considered the age and probative value of the conviction.

The applicant was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of conspiracy to defraud and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. The prosecution case was that he assisted a co-defendant to dispose of assets dishonestly removed from a company. His defence was that he believed he was helping the co-defendant conceal assets from the latter’s wife during divorce proceedings.

At trial, the judge admitted the applicant’s 1990 conviction for conspiracy to obtain goods by deception as bad-character evidence. The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal after refusal by a single judge. The central issue was whether the conviction was properly admissible under sections 101(1)(d) and 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. The trial judge was entitled to admit the previous conviction under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It was probative of whether the applicant had guilty knowledge of the fraud or was, as he claimed, an innocent dupe.

2. The age of the conviction did not make the ruling flawed. The judge had expressly considered that the earlier offence was remote in time, the risk of unfairness, and the issues in the case. On the facts, propensity to dishonesty and dishonesty were two aspects of the same issue. The judge’s summing-up dealt with them properly.

3. The court applied the appellate approach stated in R v Hanson, Gilmore and Pickstone [2005] EWCA Crim 824: where a judge has directed himself correctly, an appellate court will be slow to interfere with a bad-character ruling. The judge had properly directed himself and his exercise of judgment disclosed no error.

4. The evidence was also admissible under section 101(1)(f). The applicant’s considered interview statement that he had never acted dishonestly was capable of being a deliberate lie intended to deter prosecution and to mislead the jury. It gave a false impression capable of correction.

5. Section 105(2) did not require the prosecution to wait until the interview statement had been formally adduced before applying for a ruling. The sensible procedure was to determine admissibility in advance of adducing that evidence. The contrary construction would be absurd.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused in [2006] EWCA Crim 2003.

• Manchester Crown Court: The applicant was convicted on 21 October 2005 of conspiracy to defraud and, on 27 January 2006, was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment and ordered to contribute £10,000 towards prosecution costs.