Balazs, R v

Previous convictions may be admitted to prove propensity under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 101(1)(d), where they have real probative force as a unified pattern of controlling, violent, threatening or sexual behaviour towards current or former partners. A single and old conviction may exceptionally contribute to that pattern where its circumstances have such force.

In sentencing several rape counts, the fact that they are separately charged does not prevent the court from treating the conduct as one episode when assessing overall seriousness. Aggravating and mitigating features must be weighed together. Authorities offered merely to illustrate the operation of sentencing guidelines must not be cited in this court.

The appellant was convicted at Bradford Crown Court of three rapes committed during one incident involving his partner. He received concurrent terms of 13 years’ imprisonment.

The prosecution had relied on four previous convictions, including an old rape conviction and convictions for violence and harassment against a former partner. They were admitted as bad-character evidence of a propensity to control partners through violent, threatening and sexual conduct. The appellant challenged the convictions and contended that the sentence was excessive.

The central issues were whether the previous convictions were properly admitted and what sentence was proportionate for the three offences.

1. The conviction appeal was dismissed. The judge was entitled to admit the four previous convictions under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Their unifying characteristic was conduct towards a girlfriend or former girlfriend which showed an attempt to assert control by violent, threatening and sexual behaviour.
2. The age of the earlier rape conviction did not make it inadmissible. Although a single previous conviction will often be insufficient to establish propensity, this was an exceptional case in which that conviction formed part of a linked pattern and had probative force. The court applied R v Hanson [2005] 2 Cr App R 21. The jury direction accurately identified the limited propensity for which the convictions could be used.
3. The sentence appeal was allowed. Although the offences were properly charged as three counts, they constituted one episode. The aggravating features had to be counterbalanced by the mitigating features. The offending did not display the further characteristics commonly seen in more serious cases of this kind.
4. The concurrent terms of 13 years were quashed and concurrent terms of eight years were substituted. All other orders remained.
5. As an additional observation, authorities said merely to show how sentencing guidelines have operated are of no assistance to the Court of Appeal and must not be cited.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2014] EWCA Crim 937, dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence, substituting concurrent terms of eight years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Bradford — The appellant was convicted on 13 May 2013 of three counts of rape and, on 14 June 2013, was sentenced to three concurrent terms of 13 years’ imprisonment.