Gaston, R. v

Previous convictions for carrying knives may be admitted to prove a propensity to commit knife-related offending where they are sufficiently similar to the charge and are logically probative. Differences in the circumstances of the earlier offences may affect weight, but do not necessarily require exclusion.

Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, the trial judge must consider whether admission would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings. A properly directed jury may assess the evidence without unfair prejudice. A summing-up need not repeat every point raised in cross-examination, provided that it fairly directs the jury on the material issues.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Wood Green of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, violent disorder and possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. The prosecution case depended principally on a police officer's identification of him from CCTV stills, supported by the footage, clothing evidence, his silence in interview and evidence of two earlier convictions for possessing bladed articles.

He appealed against conviction, contending that the bad-character evidence was inadmissible and that the summing-up inadequately addressed weaknesses in the identification evidence. He also appealed against a 14-year extended sentence, alleging insufficient basis for dangerousness and unjustified disparity with a co-defendant who had pleaded guilty.

Decision

1. The court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.

2. The identification evidence did not make the prosecution case weak. The identifying officer was sure of his recognition, and the jury could test that evidence against the photograph and CCTV footage. They received clear directions on the special dangers of identification evidence and on the need to make their own careful assessment.

3. The two earlier convictions for possessing knives were sufficiently similar and logically probative. Possession of an offensive weapon was itself a closely similar count, and the evidence was capable of showing that the appellant was a knife carrier. The differences between the earlier simple-possession offences and the group attack affected the weight of the evidence, rather than its admissibility.

4. The judge had addressed the fairness question under section 101(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. He was entitled to conclude that the probative value outweighed prejudice and that a properly directed jury could assess the evidence fairly. The appellant had not shown that the evidence was wrongly admitted.

5. A summing-up need not rehearse every question and answer from cross-examination. The judge adequately directed the jury to consider how well the officer knew the appellant, the short prior observation, the delay and the quality of the images. Counsel had also not raised any alleged omission when invited to do so.

6. The extended sentence was justified. The judge was entitled to find dangerousness despite the appellant's youth, having considered his offending history, the grave knife attack and the risk assessment. There was no improper disparity with the co-defendant, who pleaded guilty, had not made contact with a victim and was not assessed as dangerous.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence in [2018] EWCA Crim 1065.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: convicted the appellant on 18 August 2017 and imposed an extended sentence on 15 September 2017.