Colliard, R. v

Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, a previous drug conviction may be admitted to rebut a real or potential defence of innocent association or ignorance of drugs. This does not require proof of propensity, although fairness remains decisive.

A single previous conviction can nevertheless establish propensity. Its probative value depends on all the circumstances, including recency and the nature of the earlier offence; striking similarity and a minimum number of convictions are not required. An appellate court will rarely disturb a properly directed trial judge’s admissibility assessment unless it was plainly wrong or unreasonably exercised.

The appellant was convicted at Southampton Crown Court of possessing cocaine and heroin with intent to supply, and of dangerous driving. He had also pleaded guilty to driving while disqualified. The prosecution alleged that he and a co-accused jointly possessed drugs found after they fled from a police stop.

At trial, the judge admitted evidence of the appellant’s 2002 conviction for importing Class A drugs. The prosecution relied on it both to establish knowledge of the drugs and to demonstrate propensity. The appellant appealed against conviction, contending that the late application and incomplete detail of the earlier conviction rendered its admission unfair. He also renewed an application for leave to appeal against his seven-year total sentence.

1. Conviction appeal dismissed. The trial judge was entitled to admit the 2002 conviction under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Knowledge was essential to prove possession of the drugs. The earlier conviction was relevant to rebut a possible case that the appellant was innocently associated with drugs carried in the car. That route to admissibility did not depend on propensity under section 103.

2. The available evidence gave sufficient detail of the earlier importation. It showed that the appellant had travelled to Trinidad to smuggle cocaine into the United Kingdom, had received money and travel arrangements for that purpose, and had not identified the financier because of threats. The asserted lack of detail therefore caused no unfairness.

3. The conviction was also capable of showing propensity under section 103(1)(a). Applying R v Hanson [2005] 2 Cr App 21, the Court held that a single conviction may suffice. The prior offence was relatively recent, involved Class A drugs intended for others, and was not for personal use. The judge’s assessment was open to him and was not plainly wrong.

4. The admission of the co-accused’s evidence was not unfair. The jury knew of his earlier drug conviction and that an original allegation of possession with intent to supply had resulted in a plea to simple possession. The defence could explore those matters in cross-examination.

5. Renewed application concerning sentence dismissed. Six years for the drug offences was not manifestly excessive. The relevant sentencing guidance indicated a normal minimum of five years where there was no guilty plea, and the appellant had a relevant recent conviction. The co-accused’s lower sentence reflected both his guilty plea and his evidence for the Crown. A consecutive 12-month sentence for dangerous driving was permissible because of its distinct character, and the total sentence of seven years was not excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2008] EWCA Crim 1175, dismissed the appeal against conviction and the renewed application concerning sentence.
• Southampton Crown Court: On 13 March 2007, convicted the appellant of two offences of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply and dangerous driving; he had pleaded guilty to driving while disqualified. The court imposed a total of seven years’ imprisonment.