Hoare & Anor, R v

Evidence of a co-defendant’s propensity is prima facie admissible where it concerns an important issue between defendants, but it must have substantial probative value. It must add significantly to the other evidence on that issue. Similar conduct in an earlier relationship may have little additional value where the jury has direct evidence of the relationship in issue.

Evidence capable of proving a shared sexual motive may properly be admitted despite its prejudicial effect where its probative value is significant. In sentencing for a sexually motivated killing of a child, an additional motive does not dilute the effect of Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21 where the sexual motive is established.

Shauna Hoare and Nathan Matthews renewed applications for permission to appeal convictions and sentence arising from proceedings in Bristol Crown Court. Matthews had been convicted of murder, conspiracy to kidnap and related offences. Hoare had been convicted of manslaughter, conspiracy to kidnap and related offences.

The prosecution case was that the applicants planned to kidnap a 16-year-old girl for a shared sexual purpose. Matthews killed her and both applicants participated in concealment after her death. The principal issues were the admissibility of sexual propensity evidence, the exclusion of evidence from Matthews’s former partner about a controlling relationship, and whether the sentences were excessive.

1. The renewed applications for permission to appeal were dismissed. None of Matthews’s or Hoare’s convictions was unsafe, and neither sentence was manifestly excessive.

2. The court upheld the admission of the video material, pornography, websites and related messages. The evidence was capable of proving sexual motive and of undermining an objectively implausible explanation for the proposed kidnapping. Its significant probative value justified its prejudicial effect. The trial judge’s ruling was entirely proper.

3. On Hoare’s application to adduce evidence from KF, the court accepted that propensity evidence of a co-defendant was prima facie admissible if it had substantial probative value on an important issue between the defendants. Applying Phillips v R [2011] EWCA Crim 2935, substantial probative value meant that the evidence added significantly to other probative evidence on the same issue. Although the court did not accept that factual differences between the two relationships alone resolved the issue, KF’s evidence added little, if anything, to the evidence concerning the actual Matthews–Hoare relationship. The exclusion ruling was therefore not wrong.

4. In any event, the court separately concluded that the evidence against Hoare concerning the planned kidnapping, her presence, the aftermath and the subsequent lies was capable of establishing her guilt. There was no reasonable argument that her convictions were unsafe. The court added, obiter, that a genuine concern about satellite litigation could not displace evidence which otherwise had substantial probative value.

5. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that Matthews’s motive was sexual. The existence of hostility towards the victim or another motive did not reduce the effect of the applicable Schedule 21 factors. R v Tailor [2008] 1 Cr App R (S), 37 did not establish the contrary proposition. A 30-year starting point, followed by a 33-year minimum term, was not manifestly excessive. Hoare’s controlling relationship, background and reduced culpability had been taken into account; her 17-year determinate sentence was likewise not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for permission to appeal convictions and sentence dismissed.
• Bristol Crown Court: Matthews was convicted of murder, conspiracy to kidnap and related offences. Hoare was convicted of manslaughter, conspiracy to kidnap and related offences. Matthews received life imprisonment with a 33-year minimum term; Hoare received concurrent sentences totalling 17 years’ imprisonment.