Lodge, R. v

Where a jury hears evidence of a defendant’s reprimands or warnings as evidence of bad character, the judge must give clear guidance on its proper use. The jury should be warned against placing undue weight on the material. It cannot bolster a weak prosecution case, and it must not lead the jury to assume guilt from past misconduct.

A defendant with no convictions is not necessarily entitled to a full or credibility-based good character direction. That remains a matter for the judge’s discretion where the record includes violence or dishonesty relevant to the proposed direction.

The appellant was convicted of robbery at Blackfriars Crown Court and received a community sentence. She appealed against conviction with leave of the single judge.

Although she had no previous convictions, she had received juvenile reprimands and warnings, including for violence and an offence involving dishonesty. Her counsel elicited that history after seeking a good character direction. The trial judge gave neither a good character direction nor guidance on the use of the misconduct evidence. The central issue was whether that omission rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was unsafe and was quashed. The court declined to order a retrial.
2. The appellant was not entitled to a full good character direction. Her previous reprimands and warnings for violence were inconsistent with a propensity direction in a robbery involving violence. A credibility direction was discretionary. Given the warning for an offence of dishonesty, the judge could not be criticised for declining to give one.
3. However, the jury had heard evidence of the appellant’s misconduct. It was evidence of bad character and was admissible under section 101(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, because the defence had elicited it. Once that evidence was before the jury, the judge had to direct them on its proper and limited use.
4. The required direction was the conventional bad-character warning. The jury should have been told not to place undue reliance on the reprimands and warnings; not to use them to bolster a weak prosecution case; and not to infer guilt merely from past misconduct. They should also have been told that the prosecution did not rely on the history as showing a propensity for violence inconsistent with the appellant’s account of acting to defend her co-defendant.
5. Without that guidance, the court could not assess the effect of the evidence. The jury might have given it inappropriate weight and treated it as demonstrating a propensity to use violence other than in defence of a friend. The conviction was therefore unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeal against conviction, quashed the conviction, and declined to order a retrial: [2009] EWCA Crim 2651.
• Blackfriars Crown Court — convicted the appellant of robbery on 14 October 2008 and imposed a community sentence.