Agrela, R. v

Under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the trial judge must assess the potential relevance and probative value of proposed non-defendant bad-character evidence. It is not enough that a jury might choose to consider it. Speculative material will not satisfy the statutory test.

Properly certified foreign convictions may be admitted under section 101(d) where they are relevant to an important issue, including identity and propensity. A careful direction to give disputed convictions little weight, or to disregard them, does not invalidate their admission. Graphic illustrations of injuries may fairly be admitted where their evidential relevance assists the jury on a live issue and the trial judge exercises discretion properly.

The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against his murder conviction after the single judge had refused leave. A jury at Chelmsford Crown Court had convicted him of murdering Colin Evans, and he received a life sentence.

The evidence against him included bloodstained clothing, DNA and fingerprint evidence, the deceased’s blood on him, and his possession of the deceased’s property. The renewed application challenged three rulings at trial: the exclusion of proposed bad-character evidence about another occupant; the admission of the applicant’s Portuguese convictions; and the admission of graphic representations of the fatal injuries.

The central issue was whether any ruling gave rise to an arguable challenge to the safety of the conviction.

1. The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal. None of the three complaints raised an arguable ground that the conviction was unsafe.

2. The proposed cross-examination of Mr Calhoun was properly excluded under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The judge, not the jury, had to determine the potential relevance of the proposed evidence. The material concerning prior public-order matters, alleged threats and possible mental-health difficulties was speculative and lacked sufficient probative value. It did not become admissible merely because Mr Calhoun had an opportunity to commit the offence.

3. The applicant’s Portuguese convictions were properly admitted. Properly certified documents were available, and the convictions were relevant to important matters in issue: the identity of the killer and the applicant’s propensity for violence, robbery and dishonesty in circumstances involving another person’s property. The requirements for proof of foreign convictions under section 7 of the Evidence Act 1851 and admissibility under section 101(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were satisfied.

   The summing-up did not undermine that ruling. The judge accurately identified the applicant’s challenges to the convictions, warned the jury against giving them disproportionate weight, and permitted the jury fairly to disregard them if appropriate.

4. The graphic injury illustrations were admissible in the trial judge’s discretion. They were relevant to the severity and nature of the attack, the arterial bloodstaining on the applicant’s T-shirt, and the credibility of his account that he had discovered the victim only after the killing. Their graphic character did not render the trial unfair, particularly as they were less stark than photographs would have been.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by the single judge.

• Crown Court at Chelmsford On 16 April 2015, the applicant was convicted of murder before Judge Ball QC and a jury. On 22 June 2015, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term specified under section 269(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.