R v Grant Harding

Evidence about a deceased person’s alleged violent character is admissible under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 100 only if it satisfies one of the statutory routes. It must either be important explanatory evidence, with substantial value for understanding the case as a whole, or have substantial probative value on a matter of substantial importance. Vague, untested hearsay that does not explain the evidence and invites speculation will not meet those tests. The statutory safeguards must also be considered. If the evidence is not bad character evidence because it discloses no misconduct or reprehensible behaviour, relevance is the sole test. Evidence with no probative value is inadmissible. An exclusion error cannot make a conviction unsafe where admission could not have affected the verdict.

The applicant was convicted of murder at Northampton Crown Court and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 27 years. He admitted killing the deceased but disputed an intention to cause serious bodily harm and relied alternatively on diminished responsibility.

After the applicant gave evidence, the defence sought to adduce hearsay evidence from the deceased’s key worker suggesting that the deceased had been a street fighter and had recently fought an English man. The trial judge refused the application under sections 100 and 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. A single judge refused leave to appeal. The renewed application concerned whether the evidence was admissible as the deceased’s bad character or, alternatively, relevant evidence.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The court agreed with the single judge and the trial judge that the evidence was properly excluded.

1. Under section 100(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence must be important explanatory evidence. Without it, the jury must find it impossible or difficult to understand other evidence, and its value for understanding the case as a whole must be substantial. The applicant’s case was clear, and the proposed evidence explained nothing.
2. Section 100(1)(b) requires substantial probative value in relation to a matter in issue that is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. The proposed evidence did not satisfy that requirement. The meaning of “street fighter”, the timing and truth of the alleged history, and the nature of the alleged fight were unclear. The material was hearsay and could not be tested or explored.
3. The judge was entitled to take account of the factors required by section 101(3). The evidence risked causing the jury to draw wholly inaccurate inferences. The alleged fight might not have involved misconduct at all, and the hearsay material could not establish the hoped-for probative value.
4. The court further observed that, if the material was not bad character evidence because it disclosed no misconduct or reprehensible behaviour, relevance would be the sole test. On that basis also, the evidence was irrelevant, invited speculation and had no probative value.
5. In any event, the case against the applicant was overwhelming. The eyewitness evidence, forensic evidence, text message and contradictions in his changing accounts meant that admission of the proposed evidence could have made no difference to the verdict. The conviction was not unsafe and the trial was not unfair.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused in [2023] EWCA Crim 937.
2. Northampton Crown Court: The applicant was convicted by a jury of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 27 years.
3. Single judge: Leave to appeal was refused before the renewed application.