Spottiswood, R. v

Evidence of a single previous conviction may establish a statutory propensity where its particular circumstances provide a logical and probative connection with the specific offence charged. Striking similarity is unnecessary, but general criminality is insufficient. A previous offensive use of an unusual headlock was capable of rebutting a defence that an identical hold had been used instinctively and lawfully in self-defence.

Separate directions on lies and a failure to mention facts under section 34 may be proper where they concern distinct conduct and explanations. They do not necessarily involve double counting. Where the directions substantially overlap, the preferable course is to select, adapt or combine them. In sentencing, aggravating features must justify the extent of any increase from the applicable starting point.

Following a retrial in the Crown Court at Newcastle, the appellant was unanimously convicted of murdering Darren Bonner. He received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years.

The appellant accepted that his headlock caused the fatal injury, but maintained that he had acted in lawful self-defence. The Crown relied on a 2010 conviction arising from an escape from custody, during which the appellant used a headlock offensively, as bad-character evidence. The appellant also challenged the judge’s separate directions on his admitted lies in interview and his failure to disclose his later defence.

The Court of Appeal considered the admissibility and fairness of the bad-character evidence, the directions, and whether the minimum term was excessive.

1. Conviction appeal dismissed. The 2010 incident was properly admitted under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 101(1)(d). A single prior conviction may demonstrate propensity where its circumstances have a logical and probative connection with the specific conduct alleged. The appellant’s earlier offensive use of an identical headlock was highly distinctive. It was relevant to whether he had used the hold defensively and spontaneously or as the aggressor.
2. The evidence did not make the trial unfair under section 101(3). Its dramatic features did not prevent a dispassionate assessment by the jury, particularly given the admitted criminal background. The judge confined its use to possible support for the prosecution case and gave appropriate limiting directions. Applying R v Hanson, R v Gilmore, R v P [2005] EWCA Crim 824, the court held that the evidence did not impermissibly bolster a weak case.
3. The separate directions on admitted lies and the failure to mention the detailed defence in interview were lawful. They concerned materially different accounts and explanations. Therefore, they did not invite double counting. R v Hackett [2011] EWCA Crim 380 was distinguishable. The court nevertheless endorsed the guidance that, where the explanations materially overlap, a combined or modified direction will often be preferable.
4. Sentence appeal allowed. The judge was entitled to find serious aggravating features, including the abandonment of the victim, concealment and attempts to avoid detection. However, those features did not justify an increase of seven years from the 15-year starting point. The minimum term was reduced from 22 to 20 years, with the sentence otherwise unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appeal against sentence was allowed to the limited extent of reducing the minimum term from 22 years to 20 years.
• Crown Court at Newcastle: Following a retrial, the appellant was convicted unanimously of murder on 2 July 2018. On 23 August 2018 he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 22-year minimum term.