Brown, R v

A trial judge should explain clearly why bad-character evidence has been admitted and how the jury may use it. Evidence admitted for one purpose may properly be used for another, including credibility where the circumstances justify that use.

An unaccepted basis of plea by a co-defendant, tendered for the truth of its factual contents, is hearsay. If admitted by agreement under section 114(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the jury should receive an appropriate hearsay direction. A misdirection does not render a conviction unsafe where the relevant point was otherwise clear and a correct direction could not have assisted the defence.

The appellant was convicted at Ipswich Crown Court of attempting to possess 476 grams of cocaine with intent to supply, and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. His case was that he had innocently accepted a package addressed to him and had no arrangement with his co-defendant, Knights.

He appealed on two grounds. First, he challenged the direction concerning his previous convictions, which the defence had introduced to explain his allegedly confused and untruthful police interview. Secondly, he challenged the treatment of Knights’ unaccepted basis of plea, which had been included in the jury’s written admissions. The central issue was whether either misdirection made the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction was safe despite errors in the summing-up.

2. The judge should have explained, in simple terms, why the appellant’s previous convictions had been introduced. The evidence had been deployed to support his account that stress, tiredness and confusion during a separate trial explained his interview answers. That approach followed the guidance in Campbell [2007] EWCA Crim 1472. The judge was nevertheless entitled to direct that the convictions could be considered on credibility. The appellant had been convicted of the assault matter relied on to explain his interview, and the convictions contained no drug offending.

3. The co-defendant’s basis of plea could not properly be treated as an ordinary formal admission. It was advanced for the truth of the facts it asserted and could only have been before the jury as hearsay under section 114(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The judge should therefore have explained its hearsay character and the use which the jury could make of it. The failure to do so was a misdirection.

4. Neither error affected safety. Later parts of the summing-up made the relevance of the previous convictions obvious. A proper hearsay direction would have stressed that the co-defendant’s account was untested, although he was available to give evidence. That would have been highly damaging to the appellant’s reliance on the basis of plea. The conviction accordingly remained safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
• Crown Court at Ipswich: On 1 March 2007, convicted the appellant of attempting to possess cocaine with intent to supply and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.