Edwards, R. v

Evidence of a non-defendant’s bad character is not admissible as important explanatory evidence unless, without it, the jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand the other evidence and its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.

Under section 100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, substantial probative value requires more than relevance. Previous convictions of a person alleged to have been violent will not ordinarily have substantial probative value on whether that person posed a threat at a particular later moment where the issue can be determined from direct contemporaneous evidence and the defendant did not know of the convictions.

The appellant was convicted at Nottingham Crown Court of manslaughter after he punched the deceased outside a bar. The deceased fell, struck his head and later died.

The appellant relied on defence of another. He said that he honestly believed the deceased was about to attack his friend. The prosecution relied principally on CCTV footage showing that the deceased had been pushed away from the friend before the punch was thrown.

At trial, the judge refused the defence application to admit the deceased’s two previous convictions for violence. The appellant appealed against conviction, contending that the convictions were important explanatory evidence or had substantial probative value under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The central issue was whether their exclusion rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge correctly refused to admit the deceased’s previous convictions for violence.

2. The convictions were not important explanatory evidence under section 100(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The evidence and issues were straightforward. The jury could properly understand and assess the CCTV and eyewitness evidence without knowing of the convictions.

3. The convictions also lacked the substantial probative value required by section 100(1)(b). The relevant issue was whether, when the appellant threw the punch, he honestly believed that his friend faced an imminent attack. A serious violent conviction committed when the deceased was 14 could not materially establish a propensity for street violence 11 years later. Even if the convictions showed a propensity for violence, they could at most support the already evident conclusion that the deceased had acted aggressively shortly beforehand. They did not materially assist on whether he remained a threat after the doorman had repelled and separated him from the friend.

4. The court confirmed that, unlike section 101(1)(d), section 100(1)(b) contains no residual statutory discretion to exclude otherwise admissible non-defendant bad-character evidence for fairness. The judge’s references to unfair advantage and balancing the equities were not a misapplication of such a discretion. Read fairly, his ruling found that the evidence did not have the required substantial probative value.

5. In any event, exclusion could not have rendered the conviction unsafe. The CCTV gave clear and compelling evidence that the deceased was not moving towards the friend when the appellant acted. The appellant’s later conduct also undermined his account. The conviction was therefore safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: on 30 May 2017, convicted the appellant of manslaughter and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment.