Purcell, R. v

Bad-character evidence is admissible under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 101(1)(d) only after a case-specific assessment of its relevance to an important issue. Previous convictions may establish a propensity to commit vehicle crime even where not all are of the same description or category as the charge.

The court must assess the evidence against the actual issues at trial, including identification and an asserted innocent explanation for recent possession of stolen property. The age, number and continuity of convictions remain relevant to propensity and fairness. Where the convictions materially assist those issues and do not create an adverse effect on fairness, they may properly be admitted.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at St Albans of theft of a motor car. The prosecution alleged that he participated in a staged collision used to take the complainant’s car. He was found two days later in that recently stolen car, which bore false numberplates.

The appellant relied on alibi evidence for the time of the theft and said that he was an innocent passenger when the car later crashed. The trial judge admitted convictions for vehicle-related offending, including taking a vehicle without consent, dangerous driving, driving while disqualified and driving without insurance.

With leave of the single judge, the appellant challenged the admission of that evidence. The central issue was whether the convictions were relevant to a matter in issue and, if so, whether their admission adversely affected the fairness of the proceedings.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction was safe. The trial judge was entitled to admit the appellant’s relevant previous convictions under sections 101 and 103 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

2. Admissibility required a careful assessment of the particular facts and issues in the trial. The court applied the guidance in Hanson and others [2005] 2 Cr.App.R 21 and the case-specific approach identified in Harrison. Previous convictions should not be admitted routinely merely because a defendant has a criminal record.

3. The convictions were materially relevant to identification. The complainant’s identification was supported by the appellant’s presence, two days later, in the recently stolen car with false numberplates. His history of vehicle offending, including dangerous driving and repeated uninsured driving, placed him in a category substantially more likely than the public at large to be involved in the theft of cars.

4. The evidence also bore on the appellant’s assertion that he was an innocent passenger in the stolen car. The jury could weigh his vehicle-related offending when assessing whether his account of innocent misfortune was credible.

5. Although the 2001 conviction was four years old, subsequent vehicle-related offending supported a continuing propensity. The directions fairly cautioned the jury that bad character could not itself prove guilt and should not be overemphasised. Admission therefore caused no adverse effect on fairness within section 101(3).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—By [2007] EWCA Crim 2604, dismissed the appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at St Albans—On 26 February 2007, convicted the appellant of theft of a motor car.