Wilkinson, R. v

Where a complainant’s previous convictions were admitted because of an attack on the character of proposed defence witnesses, their relevance may fall away if those witnesses are not called. If the defence alleges only mistaken identification, rather than a malicious false accusation, a direction that the convictions have no significant bearing on identification may be fair, particularly where the jury remain aware of the evidence.

Separate serious offences against separate victims may properly attract consecutive sentences although committed in one incident. The sentencing court must nevertheless ensure that the aggregate sentence satisfies totality. The relevant flexibility under the applicable guideline does not displace that requirement.

Following a jury trial in the Crown Court at Plymouth, the appellant was convicted of threatening another with a bladed or pointed article and unlawful wounding. He was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for the threat and a consecutive 42 months’ imprisonment for the wounding.

He appealed against conviction on the ground that the judge had misdirected the jury about the complainant’s previous convictions. Those convictions had been admitted under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but the proposed defence witnesses whose character the complainant had impugned were not called. He also appealed against sentence, contending that the 57-month total was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

2. The complainant’s previous convictions had initially been admitted because he had made allegations about two prospective defence witnesses. Once those witnesses were not called, the basis for that use of the evidence fell away. The real issue was whether the complainant’s identification of the appellant was mistaken. The defence did not allege a malicious false identification.

3. The trial judge was entitled to direct the jury that the convictions were neither here nor there for that issue. The direction was careful and fair. It did not wholly exclude the evidence, and the jury remained aware of the convictions should they consider that they had residual relevance. There was therefore no misdirection. In any event, any misdirection could not have rendered the convictions unsafe.

4. The consecutive sentences disclosed no error of principle. The offences were separate and serious, and involved separate victims, notwithstanding that they arose from one incident. The applicable guideline allowed flexibility provided that the overall sentence was just.

5. The sentencing judge had sufficiently allowed for totality. The threat with a knife was itself serious and dangerous. The aggravating features included taking a knife to the conflict, homophobic motivation, the appellant’s record, and the risk to one victim in addition to the grave and lasting injuries caused to the other. The total sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by [2018] EWCA Crim 2419, dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence.
• Crown Court at Plymouth — on 4 December 2017, convicted the appellant of threatening another with a bladed or pointed article and unlawful wounding; on 5 December 2017, imposed consecutive sentences totalling 57 months’ imprisonment.