Morton, R, v

Previous convictions should not be admitted merely to bolster a weak prosecution case. However, evidence of propensity may properly be admitted under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where the prosecution case is not weak on the evidence independent of the proposed bad-character material. The assessment may proceed without assuming that the jury will draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s silence in interview.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Oxford of handling a stolen motorcycle, contrary to section 22 of the Theft Act 1968, and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, consecutive to sentences imposed on another indictment.

The motorcycle was found concealed in the rear garden of the address where the appellant was staying. He initially asserted that it belonged to a friend and was not stolen, but gave no comment answers in interview. At trial, he said that he was repairing it for an unnamed friend.

The trial judge admitted convictions for handling stolen goods and a conviction concerning theft of a motorcycle under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The sole issue on appeal was whether that evidence merely bolstered a weak Crown case and made the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge was entitled to admit the previous convictions, and the resulting conviction was not arguably unsafe.

2. The Court accepted the governing submission that previous convictions should not be put before a jury simply to reinforce a weak prosecution case. That safeguard did not assist the appellant because the Crown case was properly characterised as not weak.

3. The motorcycle had been stolen recently and was found at the address where the appellant was staying. When police began checking it, the appellant immediately asserted that it was his friend’s motorcycle, that it was not stolen, and that it had been there for a long time. Those assertions were capable of being shown false. His reference to an unidentified friend also called for explanation.

4. Those features supplied a sufficient basis for the trial judge’s assessment independently of any adverse inference from the appellant’s no comment interview. The judge could therefore admit the convictions as evidence of a propensity to handle stolen goods under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2018] EWCA Crim 1729, dismissed the appeal against conviction.

• Crown Court at Oxford: On 15 February 2018, convicted the appellant of handling stolen goods and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, consecutive to sentences on another indictment.