R v Andrew Griggs

Evidence capable of proving a defendant’s motive may constitute evidence which has to do with the alleged facts of the offence for the purposes of section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It must have a sufficient nexus with the offence. A continuing circumstance or relationship at the time of the alleged offence can provide the necessary temporal nexus.

Where such evidence is central to the alleged motive and the surrounding relationship, its prejudicial character does not make its admission unfair. A conventional direction requiring jurors to put emotion aside and assess the evidence dispassionately may be sufficient.

R v Andrew Griggs concerned a renewed application for leave to appeal, made 678 days out of time, against a murder conviction obtained at the Crown Court at Maidstone in 2019.

The prosecution case was circumstantial. It alleged that the applicant had murdered his wife after marital difficulties in which she suspected him of a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old complainant. The trial judge admitted the complainant’s evidence of that relationship as relevant to motive, credibility and the background to the marriage.

The proposed appeal challenged that ruling, the adequacy of directions on good character and circumstantial evidence, parts of the summing-up, and the safety of the conviction. The central issue was whether any arguable ground showed that the conviction was unsafe.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. No extension of time was granted because any appeal against conviction would be bound to fail.

2. The complainant’s evidence of a continuing sexual relationship with the applicant was admissible. It was of obvious and inescapable relevance to the circumstances before the disappearance, to the alleged motive for murder, and to the explanations given by the applicant to the police.

3. The evidence had a sufficient nexus with the alleged offence and therefore fell outside bad-character evidence under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Evidence capable of proving motive may have to do with the alleged facts of the offence. A temporal connection may establish the required nexus. Here, both the deceased’s suspicion and the relationship continued at the time of her disappearance: see R v McNeill [2007] EWCA Crim 2927 and R v Sule [2012] EWCA Crim 1130.

4. Alternatively, the evidence was admissible through section 101(1)(d) of the 2003 Act because it concerned important issues, including motive and the credibility of the applicant’s account. It was also important explanatory evidence under section 101(1)(c), since without it the jury would have had an incomplete understanding of the marital breakdown and its tensions. Neither section 101(3) nor section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 required exclusion on grounds of fairness.

5. The good-character direction was appropriate. The ordinary direction to assess the evidence dispassionately sufficiently guarded against emotional prejudice. The summing-up accurately summarised the evidence, gave a correct direction on circumstantial evidence, and directed the jury against speculation.

6. Applying section 2 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court held that there was no arguable ground on which the conviction could be said to be unsafe. It was unnecessary to consider the scope of the suggested lurking-doubt gloss on that statutory test.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Full Court refused the renewed, out-of-time application for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Court of Appeal (single judge): The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was refused on the papers.
• Crown Court at Maidstone: The applicant was convicted of murder in 2019 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years, subject to the stated credit for qualifying periods.