C v R.

Where a previous conviction is admissible, section 74(3) creates an evidential presumption that the accused committed the earlier offence. It does not require the prosecution to prove that offence again merely because the accused denies guilt.

However, the accused retains the statutory right to prove the contrary through the ordinary processes of the trial, including admissible evidence and cross-examination. Judicial case management may control that exercise and prevent satellite litigation, but the overriding objective cannot nullify a right conferred by primary legislation. A bare denial is inadequate; a detailed defence statement may be required so that the trial can be managed fairly.

The appellant faced charges of two double murders and a rape and robbery. The Crown sought to rely on his earlier convictions for numerous burglaries and a robbery, known as the Huntsman convictions, as evidence relevant to propensity and identity.

At a preparatory hearing, Griffiths Williams J held that the appellant's continuing assertion of innocence did not justify requiring the Crown to call witnesses from the earlier trial. He deferred any decision on evidence the defence might give to challenge the convictions.

The appellant appealed, relying on section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The issue was how to preserve the statutory entitlement to prove that the earlier convictions were wrong without turning the present proceedings into a retrial of the earlier offences.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court reformulated the judge's ruling so that any decision about evidence which the defence may adduce to prove innocence of the earlier convictions should await the defence case.

2. Under section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, proof of a conviction for an admissible earlier offence creates an evidential presumption that the accused committed it. The prosecution need not prove the earlier guilt afresh, assist the accused to prove innocence, or call witnesses from the earlier trial merely because the accused denies guilt.

3. The presumption is nevertheless rebuttable. The accused cannot be prevented from seeking to show that he did not commit the earlier offence. He may use the ordinary processes of the criminal trial, including admissible evidence and cross-examination, to do so. If he adduces such evidence, the Crown may call rebuttal evidence.

4. The court recognised the serious risk of satellite litigation. Case management under the overriding objective of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 may regulate the manner in which the statutory right is exercised. It cannot, however, nullify a right conferred by primary legislation; excluding admissible evidence capable of proving innocence of the earlier offence would be likely to make the present trial unfair.

5. The appellant was required to serve a more detailed defence statement identifying the case by which he proposed to discharge the evidential burden. A bare assertion of innocence was insufficient. Informed by that statement, the trial judge could consider allowing the Crown to postpone until after the defence case any decision whether to call evidence confirming the earlier guilt and convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal to the limited extent of reformulating the ruling so as to preserve the appellant's ability to adduce evidence challenging the earlier convictions.

• Crown Court at Swansea: At a preparatory hearing, Griffiths Williams J ruled on the handling of the appellant's earlier convictions at the forthcoming trial.