Cambridge, R v

Evidence of earlier events may be admissible at common law to rebut a defence of mistake, accident or innocent association. Bad-character evidence may likewise be admissible under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where it is relevant to an important matter in issue; that concept is not confined to propensity.

Relevance is assessed by logic and common sense. Evidence may be capable of rebutting innocent association if, taken with the other evidence, it reduces the likelihood that incriminating forensic material was innocently acquired. A summing-up is to be read as a whole. Loose language will not make a conviction unsafe where the defence case was fairly and fully put to the jury.

The appellant was convicted at the Inner London Crown Court, by an 11 to 1 majority, of possessing a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life. A loaded modified pistol was found in a bag bearing his fingerprints, and DNA matching him was found on the pistol magazine.

At trial, the judge admitted evidence that, when aged 14, the appellant had discarded a replica firearm, and that he had later been shot in both legs close to the place where the pistol was found. The appellant denied knowing of the pistol and contended that the forensic evidence resulted from innocent contact or secondary transfer.

He appealed against conviction, principally challenging the admissibility of the two earlier incidents and aspects of the summing-up.

1. Appeal dismissed. The convictions were safe. The disputed evidence was properly admitted and the summing-up disclosed no unfairness capable of undermining them.

2. At common law, the Crown may adduce evidence to rebut a defence of mistake, accident or innocent association. The court referred to Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57 and DPP v Boardman [1975] AC 421. The same purpose may be served by bad-character evidence admissible under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. An important matter in issue is not confined to propensity.

3. The incidents were relevant on a logical and commonsense assessment. The appellant's earlier carrying of a replica firearm and his later shooting reduced the likelihood that his fingerprints reached the bag and his DNA reached the pistol magazine without his having touched the pistol. The former was capable of showing preparedness to carry a gun and the latter was capable of showing a motive to possess one. The jury could therefore treat both incidents as rebutting innocent association.

4. Once the shooting evidence was admitted, the jury were entitled to know that there was evidence that the appellant had been reluctant to give an account of it. The court also rejected the complaints about the summing-up. The judge had canvassed the defence contention that the incidents were irrelevant and had set out the appellant's case in detail. Any loose reference to his having been shot by accident did not render the conviction unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against conviction in [2011] EWCA Crim 2009.

• Inner London Crown Court: on 27 January 2011, convicted the appellant by an 11 to 1 majority of possessing a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life, and imposed concurrent detention sentences.