McNeill, R. v

Evidence falls outside the statutory bad-character regime where it directly concerns the alleged offence. This includes evidence that would have been admissible at common law independently of propensity, or evidence reasonably contemporaneous with and closely associated with the alleged facts. Under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, prejudicial evidence is not thereby unfair. Exclusion requires an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings such that the court ought not admit it.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook of making threats to kill her neighbour. She had pleaded guilty to malicious damage after breaking a hole in his door.

The Crown relied on evidence that, two days later, she told a housing officer that she would burn the neighbour's flat down and that its occupants would leave in body bags. The trial judge admitted that evidence under section 98(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, rather than as bad-character evidence, and refused exclusion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Her appeal challenged both rulings.

1. Appeal dismissed. The housing officer's evidence was admissible under section 98(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It was evidence having to do with the alleged facts of the charged offence, not evidence of bad character within the statutory regime.
2. The words in section 98(a) are prima facie broad, although they must be read in the context of the bad-character provisions. They encompass evidence which would have been admissible at common law independently of bad character or propensity. They also encompass evidence directly relevant to the charged offence where it is reasonably contemporaneous with, and closely associated with, its alleged facts.
3. The later statement concerned the same neighbour, repeated an alleged threat to burn the flat, and was capable of supporting the Crown's case that threats had been made and that the appellant intended her neighbour to fear they would be carried out. Its weight was for the jury. The judge's direction correctly confined the jury to that use.
4. Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 did not require exclusion. Prosecution evidence will commonly prejudice a defendant, but that is insufficient. The question is whether admission would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings so that the court ought not admit it. The appellant's distressed state when speaking to the housing officer did not make the evidence unfairly prejudicial; it could also support her case that she had merely lost control and had not intended a genuine threat.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2007] EWCA Crim 2927, dismissed the appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook. The appellant was convicted of making threats to kill after trial and had pleaded guilty to malicious damage. She received concurrent suspended sentences.