Laws-Chapman v R

Bad-character evidence is inadmissible unless it has legitimate probative value on a statutory gateway. A conviction for what was, on the available material, consensual sexual activity with a person over the present-day age of consent does not, without more, tend to prove a propensity to commit violent sexual offences against children.

A police-interview denial about unrelated consensual sexual activity cannot make that evidence admissible to correct a false impression when it is not part of the defence at trial. Nor does an alternative-perpetrator case justify comparing such a conviction with convictions for child sexual abuse. Admission of highly prejudicial but irrelevant bad-character evidence rendered the convictions unsafe.

The appellant was convicted at Maidstone Crown Court of indecency with a child under 14 and buggery. The offences were alleged to have occurred in 1978 against a complainant then aged 12 or 13.

At trial, the judge admitted the appellant’s 1985 conviction for buggery of a 17-year-old at the rear of the same café. The prosecution relied on propensity, correction of a false impression, and the defence suggestion that another man with convictions for child sexual offences was the true perpetrator.

The appeal concerned whether that single later conviction, for which little was known beyond its location and the victim’s age, was admissible evidence of bad character.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court quashed both convictions because the 1985 conviction was inadmissible and its admission rendered the convictions unsafe.

2. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, bad-character evidence relied on to establish propensity must have real relevance to the offending charged. The alleged 1978 offences were violent, paedophilic acts committed against the will of a child aged 12 or 13. The available material about the 1985 conviction did not establish coercion or an offence against a child. It strongly suggested consensual activity with a 17-year-old who was then below the age of consent.

3. That later conviction therefore did not tend to prove that the appellant had a propensity to commit violent sexual offences against children. The shared location and the fact that both allegations involved buggery did not supply the missing relevance. Consensual sexual relations between persons over the current age of consent do not, without more, prove that an older participant is a paedophile or has such a propensity.

4. The appellant’s interview denial that he had previously had anal sex with a man did not justify admission to correct a false impression. It was elicited by police questioning, did not form part of the defence at trial, and was irrelevant to whether he committed the charged offences.

5. The alternative-perpetrator case concerning Roy Reynolds did not assist. The 1985 conviction could not legitimately be equated with convictions for offences against children, and it had no legitimate use when assessing whether Reynolds rather than the appellant was the perpetrator. The evidence was highly prejudicial, and the Crown properly conceded its inadmissibility.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions: [2013] EWCA Crim 1851.

• Crown Court at Maidstone: on 8 July 2013, convicted the appellant of indecency with a child under 14 and buggery, and imposed concurrent terms of two and eight years’ immediate imprisonment.