Clarke, R v

In a trial involving cut-throat defences, evidence of a defendant’s previous conviction may properly be admitted to show a propensity for untruthfulness where it is relevant to the co-accused’s defence. The court may permit the jury to know the nature of the earlier allegation where that is necessary to assess the significance of the lies, provided the evidence is confined by a clear direction to its permitted use.

Jurors are expected to follow such directions. An extension of time to seek leave to appeal should not be granted where the proposed ground is unarguable, particularly after a lengthy and inadequately explained delay.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to conspiracy to rob and was later convicted of murder following the fatal attack on Muneed Nasir during the intended robbery. He received life sentences, with a minimum term of 26 years for murder.

At trial, a co-accused was allowed to rely on the applicant’s earlier conviction to suggest a propensity for untruthfulness in the parties’ cut-throat defences. The trial judge directed that the evidence could be used only for that purpose.

About five years later, the applicant sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction. His joint-enterprise ground was no longer pursued. The renewed application concerned whether disclosure of the nature of the earlier conviction caused incurable prejudice.

1. The renewed application was refused. The sole proposed ground of appeal was not arguable. It was therefore unnecessary to grant an extension of time.
2. The trial judge was entitled to conclude that the applicant’s lies to the police and jury in the earlier proceedings were capable of demonstrating a propensity for untruthfulness. That issue was relevant because the co-accused advanced a vigorous cut-throat defence and alleged that the applicant had lied to him as well as in the earlier proceedings.
3. The court upheld the admission of the evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for that limited purpose. It accepted that a more general description of the earlier offence would have reduced prejudice to the applicant. However, it would have been unfair to the co-accused to conceal that the lies concerned a serious allegation likely to carry a significant custodial sentence. The judge’s limiting direction was not criticised, and the court endorsed the expectation that juries loyally follow such directions.
4. The explanation for the five-year delay was wholly unsatisfactory. The applicant knew shortly after conviction that his trial lawyers saw no appeal point and was able to consult other solicitors. In any event, as the ground lacked arguable merit, no purpose would have been served by extending time.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction refused.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: the applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob, was convicted of murder after trial, and received life sentences.