Bagot, R. v

A single previous conviction will not ordinarily establish a propensity for the purposes of admitting bad-character evidence. It may do so only where its circumstances show unusual behaviour or otherwise have real probative force in relation to the charge. Similar superficial features do not suffice. The court must assess the incidents realistically and identify a genuinely distinctive connection. A youthful episode of vehicle taking after breaking into the home in which the offender lived did not demonstrate a propensity for a later sophisticated burglary and theft of a relative’s car.

The appellant appealed, with leave of the single judge, against convictions for burglary and theft at Stafford Crown Court. The prosecution case included fingerprints on recovered property, the later discovery of the stolen car near the appellant’s home, and evidence that a young man had driven it.

The Crown was permitted to adduce one previous conviction arising when the appellant was 14. He had broken into the home where he lived after being locked out, then taken and badly driven his mother’s boyfriend’s car. The evidence was admitted under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 101(d), as showing a propensity to commit the charged offences.

The central issue was whether that conviction was properly admissible as bad-character evidence of propensity.

1. Appeal allowed; convictions quashed. The court held that the trial judge was plainly wrong to admit the appellant’s sole relevant previous conviction as evidence of a propensity to commit the charged burglary and theft.

2. The court applied the guidance in Hanson 2005 EWCA Crim 824. There is no minimum number of previous events capable of establishing propensity. However, a single conviction will often be weak evidence and will usually require unusual conduct or circumstances giving it genuine probative force in relation to the charge.

3. The asserted common features did not form a distinctive hallmark. The earlier offence was impulsive teenage misconduct after the appellant had been locked out of his own home. The alleged index offence was a professional burglary involving substantial property and a vehicle whose number plate and tax disc were changed. The difference in character, sophistication and circumstances was substantial.

4. The prosecution case apart from the bad-character evidence was comparatively thin. The fingerprint evidence was of limited value because the appellant frequently visited the house, and the visual evidence was weak. The wrongly admitted evidence could not properly demonstrate an arguable propensity under section 101(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It was therefore unnecessary to determine the remaining grounds of appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions.
• Stafford Crown Court: The appellant was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 of burglary and theft after a three-day trial. He received nine months’ detention in a Young Offender Institution on each count, concurrently.