Regina v Callum Andrews

Where an appeal challenges the exclusion of bad-character evidence, the appellate court may assess safety by reference to the case as it stood at the close of the evidence and the summing-up. It need not decide whether the exclusion ruling was correct if the convictions remain safe.

Evidence of prior knife possession may lose arguable relevance where unchallenged trial evidence already establishes that the person possessed a knife at the material time. Even if a remaining conviction might have been admitted, the appeal will fail where it would have been only a small part of an otherwise very strong prosecution case.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and two counts of wounding with intent. One wounding count concerned the stabbing of Imara Gillings at a property used for county-lines drug dealing.

At trial, the appellant asserted self-defence and sought to adduce Gillings's convictions for aggravated burglary involving a machete and two offences of possessing a knife. The judge excluded the evidence under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 100.

The appeal challenged that ruling and contended that any error rendered all the convictions unsafe. The central issue was whether the excluded convictions could affect the safety of the verdicts.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that all convictions were safe. It did not finally decide whether the trial judge had been correct to exclude Gillings's previous convictions under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. The safety assessment had to be made on the evidence as it stood at the end of the trial and in the light of the summing-up, rather than solely by reference to the mid-trial ruling. Although the court saw some force in the criticism of the original exclusion decision, matters had changed after Atkin gave evidence.
3. Atkin gave unchallenged evidence that she had seen Gillings with a small folding knife shortly before the stabbing. The two previous convictions for possessing a knife therefore ceased to have arguable relevance. The aggravated-burglary conviction was the only potentially live item.
4. The prosecution case on the wounding count was very strong. Atkin was an independent eyewitness who described the appellant as the aggressor and identified the Rambo knife he used. The victim's injuries supported that account. The appellant's conduct after the incident, the blood matching the victim on his trainers, and other evidence also supported the prosecution case.
5. Even if the previous convictions had been admitted, they would have formed only small fragments of the evidence before the jury. They could not undermine the safety of the conviction on that count or the related convictions. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The court dismissed the appeal against all convictions, holding that the verdicts were safe.
• Crown Court. On 22 December 2021, following trial before Judge Bishop, the appellant was convicted of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and two counts of wounding with intent. On 24 March 2022, he received an extended determinate sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020.