Mehmedov v R

A foreign conviction may be proved under section 73 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 without reading into that provision a requirement that the conviction was entered after the relevant state became an EU member. Proof and admissibility are distinct questions. Fairness concerns may instead be addressed through the rebuttable presumption in section 74(2) and the court’s discretion to exclude evidence.

An earlier refusal to admit bad-character evidence through one gateway does not prevent admission through section 101(1)(g) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 if the defendant later attacks another person’s character. That gateway concerns the defendant’s general credibility, not a propensity to lie. However, unreliable foreign convictions should be excluded where the jury cannot fairly assess their reliability.

The appellant was convicted at Sheffield Crown Court before Teare J of murdering his partner by stabbing her repeatedly. He admitted responsibility for her death but relied on the partial defence of loss of control. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 28 years.

At trial, the judge allowed limited evidence of Bulgarian convictions after the appellant made an extensive attack on the deceased’s character in his evidence. The appellant appealed, contending that the convictions were inadmissible and could not be proved under section 73 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. He submitted that their admission rendered the verdict unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Bulgarian convictions were capable of proof under section 73 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The provision distinguishes neither convictions entered before a state’s accession to the European Union nor convictions obtained after it. The court rejected the proposed qualification of its express terms.

2. Proof of a conviction and its admission in evidence are separate matters. Under section 74(2), proof gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the offence was committed. A defendant may challenge the conviction’s correctness. Where there is evidence of an unfair foreign trial, the court may also exclude the evidence under section 101(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

3. The earlier refusal to admit the convictions through section 101(1)(d) did not determine the later application under section 101(1)(g). The appellant’s evidence had materially changed the position. He made a wholesale attack on the deceased’s character, and the gateway was therefore established. Under that gateway, bad-character evidence may be relevant to the general credibility of an attack on another’s character. It need not show a propensity for untruthfulness or meet a particular probative threshold.

4. Nevertheless, the convictions ought not to have been admitted. The jury received only general descriptions of the offences, while the agreed material raised serious doubts about the fairness of the Bulgarian proceedings. It lacked the information needed to decide whether the convictions could reliably be treated as presumptive proof of guilt.

5. The error did not make the verdict unsafe. The judge’s directions prevented propensity use and required the jury to disregard the convictions if doubtful about guilt or the fairness of the Bulgarian proceedings. More importantly, the daughter’s substantially unchallenged and contemporaneous evidence showed that the killing was planned. The jury could realistically reach no conclusion other than that it was an act of revenge, rather than a killing following loss of control.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against conviction: [2014] EWCA Crim 1523.
• Sheffield Crown Court — before Teare J, convicted the appellant of murder and imposed life imprisonment with a 28-year minimum term.