Dixie, R. v

An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge’s ruling admitting bad-character evidence where the judge has given appropriate weight to the age and lesser seriousness of the earlier conduct, and the ruling is neither demonstrably wrong nor unreasonable. The fairness of the trial must be assessed as a whole, including the extent of cross-examination, counsel’s closing speech and the summing-up.

The applicant was convicted of the murder of Sally Anne Bowman at the Central Criminal Court on 22 February 2008. DNA evidence linked him to semen and other material recovered from the deceased.

At trial, the prosecution was permitted to rely on his 1988 convictions for indecent assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm as evidence of a propensity to violence in the context of sexual assault. The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by a single judge. He challenged the admission and use of the 1988 evidence, and later raised complaints concerning photographs and media publicity.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The court held that the Recorder of London and the trial judge had properly considered the lapse of time since the 1988 incident, the applicant’s age at that time, and the comparatively less serious nature of that offending.
2. Those features were given appropriate weight. The conclusion that the 1988 convictions were admissible as evidence relevant to a propensity for violence in the circumstances of sexual assault was neither demonstrably wrong nor unreasonable ([2009] EWCA Crim 188, para 15).
3. The earlier incident had not been given undue prominence at trial. Once the applicant sought in evidence to explain his guilty pleas for the 1988 offences, it was proper for the prosecution to test that account in cross-examination. The cross-examination did not exceed what was appropriate.
4. The prosecutor’s closing speech was fair and accurate and did not place inappropriate emphasis on the earlier incident. The summing-up on that issue was likewise fair and accurate.
5. The further complaints concerning photographic evidence, media coverage and additional material did not assist the applicant. The application was entirely without merit.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused: [2009] EWCA Crim 188.
• Central Criminal Court: the applicant was convicted of murder on 22 February 2008.
• Single judge: leave to appeal against conviction was refused before the renewed application.