Smith, R v

Where a defendant of good character faces an allegation of dishonesty, a proper good-character direction is an essential part of the summing-up. Its omission renders a conviction unsafe unless the appellate court can be sure that the direction could not have affected the verdict. Where the direction might reasonably have affected the jury’s assessment of the defence’s credibility, the conviction must be quashed.

The appellant was convicted in the Liverpool Crown Court of dishonestly failing promptly to notify a change of circumstances, contrary to section 111A(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The prosecution alleged that he had failed to disclose work and self-employment while receiving severe disablement allowance.

At trial, an antecedent report mistakenly suggested that the appellant had previous convictions. His advocate therefore did not rely on his good character, and the judge gave no good-character direction. A later report showed that the appellant had no recorded convictions or cautions. The appeal concerned whether the resulting omission made the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was unsafe and was quashed.

2. The erroneous antecedent report deprived the appellant of a good-character direction to which he was entitled. Had the judge known that the appellant had no convictions or cautions, he would undoubtedly have directed the jury on good character.

3. A good-character direction is an essential component of a summing-up where a jury must decide an allegation of dishonesty, particularly in the case of a middle-aged defendant with no convictions. It bears on the jury’s assessment of the evidence in two respects, including its assessment of the credibility of the defence.

4. The court could not be sure that the omitted direction would have made no difference to the verdict. Although the evidence of dishonesty might have been compelling, the jury might reasonably have reached a different conclusion about the defence’s credibility if properly directed.

5. The Crown properly conceded both the error and the absence of certainty that it was harmless. No retrial was sought, and no further order was made.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against conviction and quashed the conviction.
• Liverpool Crown Court: On 27 September 2012, convicted the appellant of an offence contrary to section 111A(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992; on 23 October 2012, imposed a suspended sentence order with 200 hours’ unpaid work.