Chable, R. v

Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, a simple denial of an allegation does not create a false impression. However, an accused who goes further and presents himself as having nothing to do with knives may create an impression capable of correction under section 101(1)(f).

Contemporaneous evidence of a knife kept in an unusual place may also be relevant under section 101(1)(d) as evidence from which a jury may infer a disposition to misuse knives. Possession of the knife is not itself misconduct. Its significance depends on the whole evidence, including any innocent explanation. A careful direction must make clear that such evidence cannot alone prove guilt.

The appellant was convicted at Reading Crown Court of blackmail after the prosecution alleged that he had demanded money while threatening the complainant with a kitchen knife. He had already pleaded guilty to common assault arising from the same incident.

When he was arrested two days later, a different kitchen knife was found beneath his pillow. The trial judge admitted that evidence as bad-character evidence under gateways (d) and (f) in section 101(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. She directed the jury that the knife was not itself criminal or reprehensible conduct, and that it had no relevance if the appellant's explanation for keeping it there might be true.

The appeal challenged the admissibility of the evidence, the refusal to exclude it for unfairness, and the adequacy of the jury direction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the admission of the knife found beneath the appellant's pillow and rejected each ground of challenge to the conviction.

2. Gateway (f) was satisfied. Although a simple denial of offending cannot itself amount to a false impression, the appellant had gone further. In interview and evidence he presented himself as a person who had nothing to do with knives. The unusual presence of a kitchen knife beneath his pillow, together with his explanation for it, was capable of correcting that misleading impression. The court applied the distinction drawn in R v Weir [2005] EWCA Crim 2866.

3. Gateway (d) was also satisfied. Keeping a kitchen knife beneath a pillow was neither an offence nor reprehensible conduct in itself. Nevertheless, the jury could regard it, if they rejected the innocent explanation, as evidence of a disposition to misuse knives. That disposition was relevant to the central issue whether the appellant had used a knife in making the charged threats. R v Osbourne [2007] EWCA Crim 481 did not assist the appellant because the prosecution did not contend that the bare possession of the knife was itself reprehensible behaviour.

4. The court agreed that exclusion under section 101(3) was unnecessary. The knife's presence was an undisputed and contemporaneous fact, rather than disputed evidence of earlier alleged misconduct. Its prejudicial character did not make its admission unfair. Section 101(4) reinforced the significance of that contemporaneity.

5. The jury direction was proper. It distinguished possession of the knife from criminal or reprehensible conduct, identified the limited inferences open to the jury, required them to consider the appellant's explanation, and made clear that the knife could not by itself justify conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction for blackmail.

• Reading Crown Court: the appellant was convicted of blackmail by a majority of 11 to 1 on 15 July 2008 and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment on 19 September 2008. He had pleaded guilty to the associated common-assault count on 1 May 2008.