REGINA v GURPREET SINGH

Evidence of misconduct falls outside the statutory bad-character controls only where it has a close nexus with the offence charged. Relevance alone is insufficient. Evidence of an earlier acquittal is generally irrelevant because it shows only that the earlier jury was not satisfied that the charge had been proved. Exceptional circumstances may make it admissible, but an acquittal does not safely establish that witnesses lied. Material lacking a solid evidential foundation may lead to satellite litigation, speculation and distraction. On a retrial, admissibility is assessed against the counts then before the jury. A trial judge may refuse to reopen an earlier evidential ruling after an ill-advised question where the accused suffers no real prejudice and the judge remains within the proper scope of discretion.

The appellant was convicted at a retrial in the Crown Court at Birmingham of murdering his second wife. At the first trial, he had been acquitted of soliciting the murder of his first wife, while the jury could not agree on the murder charge. At the retrial, the defence sought to cross-examine the victim’s brother about an alleged fabrication of the earlier solicitation allegation and to rely on the acquittal. The trial judge ruled that the proposed material was outside section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, lacked substantial probative value under section 100, and could not be introduced in re-examination after an ill-advised prosecution question. The appeal challenged those three rulings.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was held to be safe.

1. Bad-character evidence. Sections 98 to 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provide the relevant statutory structure. Evidence within section 98(a) or (b) falls outside the definition of bad-character evidence and is admissible under common-law principles, but only where it has a close nexus with the offence charged. Relevance alone is insufficient. The nexus may arise from contemporaneous and closely associated facts or from the defendant’s motive or reasoning.
2. Section 98(b). The ambit of section 98(b) is not confined to misconduct by prosecution authorities. However, the misconduct must be connected with the investigation or prosecution of the offence charged. The proposed evidence concerned an alleged fabrication of a separate and uncharged solicitation allegation. It therefore did not qualify.
3. Previous acquittal and section 100. Following R v Hui Chi-Ming [1992] 1 AC 34, evidence of a previous acquittal is generally irrelevant and inadmissible. Exceptional circumstances may exist, but they are rare, and the verdict could not safely be treated as proof that the Uppal brothers had lied. The remaining evidence would invite speculation about a circular allegation without a solid evidential foundation and would distract the jury from the real issues. The evidence consequently lacked substantial probative value.
4. Retrial and re-examination. Evidence relevant at the first trial was not necessarily relevant at the retrial, because the earlier solicitation count was no longer before the jury. Although the prosecution question was unfortunate, the judge was entitled to refuse to reopen the ruling. The appellant suffered no real prejudice, and the judge’s handling of the issue fell within the proper scope of discretion.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) ([2022] EWCA Crim 1108): leave having been granted by the full court, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
2. Crown Court at Birmingham: following a retrial, the appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 19 years.
3. Earlier trial: the appellant was acquitted of soliciting the murder of his first wife, while the jury could not agree on the murder charge.