Dixon, R. v

On an application to adduce bad-character evidence, the trial judge must conduct a fair balancing exercise. The court must consider the evidence's probative value, its prejudicial effect, and, where relevant, the time since the earlier convictions. The judge need not recite the statutory wording if the ruling as a whole demonstrates that the correct principles and relevant facts were considered.

An accused who voluntarily creates a false impression in interview cannot require the prosecution to excise the answers which created it. Where the false impression concerns a matter central to the allegation, evidence necessary to correct it may be admitted under Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The appellant was convicted at Worcester Crown Court of seven counts of sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment. He appealed against conviction with leave.

At trial, the prosecution was permitted to adduce two old convictions for indecent assault. It relied on the false-impression and attack-on-character gateways in section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The defence had alleged that the complainant's mother had fabricated the allegations and lied about the child's sexualised behaviour.

The appeal challenged the admission of the convictions. It was argued that their prejudicial effect rendered the trial unfair and that the judge had failed expressly to apply section 101 and section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

1. Appeal dismissed. The convictions were properly admitted and their admission did not render the trial unfair.

2. The appellant's answers in interview, denying sexual attraction to any child and saying that such attraction made him feel sick, created a false impression. The answers were freely given. The proper response was not to edit them from the interview. The prosecution was entitled to rely on them and the jury required the appellant's relevant background in order fairly to assess whether he was lying. The convictions were therefore necessary to correct a false impression going to the heart of the case under section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

3. The defence attack on the complainant's mother was necessary and moderate, but its allegations of fabrication and lying were sufficiently serious to open the attack-on-character gateway.

4. The court accepted the observations in R v Highton, Van Nguyen and Carp [2005] 1 WLR 3472 concerning fairness protections in bad-character rulings. Whether the issue was approached under section 101 or section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the judge had to balance prejudice against probative value so as to ensure a fair trial.

5. Although the judge did not recite the statutory language, his ruling showed that he understood and applied the governing principles. He had considered the age of the convictions, the appellant's age when convicted, and their potential prejudice. He was entitled to conclude that their probative value justified admission and that no adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings required exclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against conviction dismissed.
• Worcester Crown Court sitting at Hereford: appellant convicted of seven counts of sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.