Hamer, R v

A Penalty Notice for Disorder is a means of dealing with suspected low-level offending. Payment does not amount to an admission or proof of guilt, does not create a criminal record, and does not impair a defendant’s good character. It is therefore irrelevant to entitlement to a full good-character direction and should not be admitted merely because it was issued.

A trial judge who describes such a notice as part of the criminal justice system risks implying unproved criminal conduct. Nevertheless, an error in admitting the notice or directing the jury does not inevitably render a conviction unsafe. The appellate court must assess the fairness of the trial and the evidence as a whole.

After a fight with a taxi driver, the appellant was tried at the Crown Court at Harrow for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He maintained that he had acted in self-defence and that the complainant’s dental injuries had another cause.

Although the appellant had no previous convictions or cautions, he had received a Penalty Notice for Disorder for an alleged minor public-order offence. The trial judge required that fact to be disclosed to the jury before giving a qualified good-character direction. The jury convicted the appellant.

By leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against conviction. The central issues were whether the notice and the resulting direction were wrongly admitted or given, and whether either error made the conviction unsafe.

Appeal dismissed. The court held that the trial judge had erred both in requiring disclosure of the Penalty Notice for Disorder and in the direction given about it. The errors did not, however, make the conviction unsafe or the trial unfair.

1. Under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, a Penalty Notice for Disorder is issued on an officer’s reasonable belief that a penalty offence has been committed. It offers the recipient an opportunity to pay a penalty and thereby avoid proceedings. It neither establishes that an offence was committed nor records an admission of guilt.
2. The court approved the relevant account of the scheme in R v Gore and Maher [2009] EWCA Crim 1424. A Penalty Notice for Disorder is distinct from a caution because a caution entails an acknowledgement of criminal conduct. The notice did not stain the appellant’s character, impugn his good character, or affect his entitlement to a full good-character direction.
3. The notice was irrelevant and should have been withheld from the jury. The judge’s description of it as the lowest level of the criminal justice system wrongly suggested that the appellant had committed a minor criminal offence. If a notice were to be mentioned, the jury would need to understand that it reflected no more than suspicion and involved no admission of guilt.
4. The court nevertheless examined the trial as a whole. The appellant’s account of self-defence did not plausibly explain the complainant’s severe dental injuries, and the judge had told the jury in substance to disregard the notice. In light of the evidence and the overall fairness of the proceedings, the conviction remained safe.

The court did not determine whether evidence of the conduct underlying a Penalty Notice for Disorder might, in another case, be admissible under the bad-character provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against conviction. The court accepted that the notice was wrongly admitted and the jury misdirected, but held that the conviction was safe.
• Crown Court at Harrow: On 12 January 2010, the appellant was convicted by a jury of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. No citation was stated in the judgment.