Jefferies, R (on the application of) v St Albans Crown Court & Anor

Evidence of a non-defendant’s bad character is admissible under section 100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 only where it has substantial probative value concerning a matter in issue that is of substantial importance in the case as a whole. A witness’s credibility does not itself constitute the relevant matter in issue. A conviction for affray will not ordinarily have substantial probative value on credibility where it contains no element of dishonesty. Its possible relevance to aggression or propensity depends on the facts, including the conduct alleged in the present case. A court’s ruling on bad character evidence will rarely be interfered with where the relevant discretion has been properly exercised.

The claimant was convicted of a public order offence by magistrates and unsuccessfully appealed to the Crown Court, which reheard the case and upheld the conviction. The Crown Court refused to state a case, and the claimant sought judicial review. Permission was granted on one ground: whether the Crown Court had wrongly refused to admit the complainant’s previous convictions. The Crown Court had proceeded on the mistaken basis that she had three convictions, although she had only one conviction for affray dating from 1998. The central issue was whether that conviction was admissible as bad-character evidence under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Crown Court had not been wrong to refuse to state a case because, even on the claimant’s favourable account of the complainant’s antecedents, the conviction was not admissible.

2. Section 100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires the evidence to have substantial probative value in relation to a matter in issue which is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. Although the complainant’s account could be of substantial probative value and could concern matters in issue, her credibility was not itself the relevant matter in issue.

3. The complainant’s single conviction for affray did not bear on credibility because it involved no suggested element of dishonesty. In the agreed circumstances, namely that she remained in her car and locked its doors, the conviction was also not relevant in terms of propensity. An affray conviction might demonstrate aggression on different facts, but it could not be of substantial importance in this case.

4. The court relied on R v Renda [2006] 2 All ER 553, which emphasised that interference with a properly exercised ruling under the bad-character provisions would be rare.

5. Although the CPS succeeded, it was awarded reduced costs of £665 because of errors and delay in establishing the complainant’s true antecedents. The court considered that those errors might have prevented permission from being granted had the true position been known.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the judicial review claim and awarded the CPS reduced costs of £665.
• St Albans Crown Court: reheard the claimant’s appeal against conviction and upheld the conviction; refused to state a case.
• Magistrates’ court: convicted the claimant of the public order offence.