Garrett, R. v

Under section 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a defendant who gives an account apt to create a partial or misleading impression of his character may open the gateway for evidence correcting that impression. A defendant is not necessarily entitled to present only favourable or selected parts of his antecedent history. The trial judge may admit convictions needed to give the jury an accurate picture, subject to the circumstances of the case.

Where such evidence is admitted solely to correct an impression, the jury must be clearly directed that it is not propensity evidence and that a conviction must not rest wholly or mainly upon it.

R v Garrett concerned an application, brought out of time, for leave to appeal against a conviction for possessing criminal property contrary to section 329(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

At the Harrow Crown Court, the applicant gave evidence that he had abandoned plans to join the army after becoming involved in violence when younger, and that he had thereafter worked. He also described himself as a victim of crime and of unfair police treatment. The prosecution successfully applied to adduce his adult convictions for violence, vehicle taking and theft under section 101(1)(f), read with section 105, of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The central issues were whether those answers had given a false impression which justified admission of the convictions, and whether the recorder’s directions adequately limited their use.

1. The court refused the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal. The conviction was safe.

2. The applicant’s evidence was apt to suggest that his violence had been confined to his youth, that he had subsequently lived responsibly, and that he had previously been a victim of crime or unfair police conduct. That impression did not accord with the totality of his antecedents. The recorder was therefore entitled to conclude that the gateway in section 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 had opened and to admit the adult convictions.

3. A defendant is not necessarily free to place before a jury only a selected part of his character. The court treated the principle in Winfield 27 Cr App R 139 as supporting admission of convictions needed to correct a partial picture. The admission of the applicant’s adult convictions did not exceed what the circumstances permitted.

4. The recorder’s summing-up was adequate. She explained that the evidence was admitted to provide an accurate picture of the applicant as a whole, directed the jury not to use it as propensity evidence, and warned that they must not convict wholly or mainly because of previous convictions. It was unnecessary to tell the jury expressly that the prosecution alleged the applicant had given false or misleading evidence. The directions properly left the weight of the evidence to the jury.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction: [2015] EWCA Crim 757.
• Harrow Crown Court: on 31 January 2014, a jury convicted the applicant of possessing criminal property.