Bullen v R

Evidence of bad character under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 101(1)(d) must be relevant to an important issue actually remaining for the jury. A general propensity for violence does not, without a focused and probative connection, make it more likely that a defendant who has admitted manslaughter had the specific intent required for murder. The statutory language concerning offences of the kind charged remains subject to relevance, probative value and fairness.

A direction on lies should be tailored to the issues at trial. A lie intended to distance a defendant from an admitted lesser offence may be capable of being an innocent explanation in relation to the more serious charge.

The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter after causing the deceased’s death during a drunken fight involving a broken beer bottle. The sole issue at his murder trial was whether he intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

The Crown was permitted to adduce seven previous convictions for relatively low-level violence as evidence of a propensity to commit violent offences. The jury convicted the appellant of murder. He appealed on the grounds that the bad-character evidence was inadmissible once manslaughter had been admitted, and that the direction on his interview lies was inadequate.

1. Appeal allowed; retrial ordered. The Crown did not contend that the conviction was safe despite the erroneous admission of bad-character evidence.

2. The judge erred in principle by admitting the appellant’s previous convictions under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 101(1)(d) without identifying the relevant issue to which they could properly speak. Following the guilty plea to manslaughter, the sole substantive issue was specific intent for murder. The appellant had admitted the unlawful violence, use of the bottle, causation and intoxication.

3. The convictions established no more than a general propensity for violence. They concerned basic-intent offences and did not establish either an intent to cause grievous bodily harm or the infliction of such harm. That general history did not make it more likely that the appellant had the specific intent required for murder. The statutory reference to offences of the kind charged is broad, but does not remove the requirements of relevance, probative value and fairness.

4. The judge had applied the questions stated in R v Hanson [2005] 2 Cr App R 21 without sufficient attention to the narrow issue at trial. Had the evidence been said to bear on particular factual sub-issues, the Crown should have identified and deployed that case expressly. Its later attempt to do so could not cure the absence of a proper trial ruling or direction.

5. The lies direction was also deficient. A jury could regard an attempt to distance oneself from a death, while guilty at least of manslaughter, as an explanation innocent in relation to the charge of murder. Although this ground was not independently dispositive, the judge should have given that case-specific explanation rather than relying solely on a standard direction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Allowed the appeal against conviction and ordered a retrial: [2008] EWCA Crim 4.

• Maidstone Crown Court. The appellant was convicted of murder after pleading guilty to manslaughter, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years less time on remand.