Anderson, R v

Evidence of conduct outside the charged drug transaction may be relevant to knowledge and to a defence of innocent involvement. Where it requires an inference of separate drug-related misconduct, it is bad-character evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It may be admitted through section 101(1)(d) if it is relevant to an important issue between the prosecution and defendant.

The trial judge must exclude otherwise admissible evidence if admission would adversely affect trial fairness. A summing-up does not render a conviction unsafe merely because it refers to the prosecution's accepted position, provided it does not convey undisclosed material and the jury can assess the issue on the evidence before them.

At Harrow Crown Court, Jason Anderson was convicted of conspiracy to supply a Class A controlled drug and sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment. The prosecution relied on cocaine found in a flat, Anderson’s fingerprints on a box containing it, and evidence that he had earlier possessed a substantial quantity of Mannitol, a substance capable of cutting cocaine.

The trial judge admitted the Mannitol evidence as bad-character evidence relevant to Anderson’s knowledge of the cocaine. Anderson appealed against conviction, contending that the ruling was legally wrong and that the summing-up improperly suggested the existence of undisclosed material from a public-interest-immunity hearing. Ewart Henry separately renewed his application for leave to appeal against his 12-year sentence.

1. Anderson’s appeal against conviction was dismissed. Henry’s renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was also dismissed.
2. The Mannitol evidence was relevant to the live issue whether Anderson knew of the cocaine in the flat. Its possession in July, coupled with his fingerprint on a cocaine box in August, was capable of undermining his denial of knowledge and his assertion of innocent involvement. The jury had to assess whether the coincidence was innocent or indicative of drug-related conduct.
3. As the prosecution did not contend that the Mannitol was connected with the August cocaine consignment, the proposed inference was that Anderson possessed it for a separate nefarious drug-related purpose. The evidence was therefore evidence of misconduct and bad character within section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It was admissible under section 101(1)(d) because it was relevant to the important issue of knowledge.
4. The trial judge had properly considered the fairness safeguard in section 101(3). The Court of Appeal found no basis to conclude that admission of the evidence caused unfairness or that the judge’s conclusion was unavailable to him.
5. The summing-up did not improperly disclose, or imply the contents of, the public-interest-immunity application. The judge’s reference to the Crown’s accepted position could be understood from the quantity, nature and packaging of the Mannitol, together with the evidence before the jury. The jury was able to assess Anderson’s innocent explanation and the verdict was not unsafe.
6. Henry’s sentence challenge identified no proper basis for intervention. The trial judge was well placed to assess relative culpability, and the 12-year sentence was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Anderson’s appeal against conviction was dismissed. Henry’s renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Harrow: Anderson was convicted of conspiracy to supply a Class A controlled drug and sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment. Henry was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.