R v George Edward Greaves

A defendant’s admission of sexual intercourse with a complainant aged under 16 may amount to bad character, even where the conduct was not charged, and the jury may take it into account subject to proper safeguards. In such circumstances, the trial judge is not obliged to give a good-character direction, including one limited to credibility. Whether fairness requires such a direction depends on all the circumstances, the judge’s assessment of the evidence and the sense of the case. Evidence that the defendant has no convictions for similar offending does not itself require a legal direction. A substantial delay in seeking leave to appeal may justify refusing an extension where the overall delay is not in the interests of justice.

The applicant was convicted at Kingston upon Hull Crown Court on 10 May 2021 of seven counts of indecent assault against one complainant and was sentenced on 25 August 2021 to 12 years’ imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal against sentence was previously refused by this court: [2022] EWCA Crim 716.

He subsequently sought an extension of 704 days and leave to appeal against conviction. He argued that the trial judge should have given a good-character direction, at least on credibility, and should not have directed the jury that his admitted sexual intercourse with the complainant when she was 14 could demonstrate propensity. The central issues were whether time should be extended and whether the character directions rendered the convictions unsafe.

The court refused both the extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction.

1. Extension of time. The delay was very considerable. Although the court accepted that obtaining transcripts, complying with McCook and arranging a conference had contributed to the delay, there had also been substantial delay in instructing fresh counsel and excessive delay before lodging grounds of appeal. An extension was not in the interests of justice.
2. Bad character. The applicant had admitted sexual intercourse with the complainant when she was under 16. That was undoubtedly bad character which the jury were entitled to take into account, subject to the safeguards in the standard direction. The trial judge’s direction was entirely appropriate.
3. Good character. The trial judge was not obliged to give a good-character direction, including one limited to credibility. The question depended on what fairness required in all the circumstances, having regard to the judge’s view of the evidence and sense of the case. Given the admission of intercourse with a 14-year-old complainant, it was reasonable to conclude that even a credibility direction was inappropriate. The court applied the approach in R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631.
4. The jury knew that the applicant had no convictions for this type of offending and that the evidence had been deployed at trial. The judge was not obliged to give a legal direction in his favour about that evidence. Even if time had been extended, the proposed appeal had no arguable merit.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused the extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction: [2024] EWCA Crim 179.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — previously refused leave to appeal against sentence: [2022] EWCA Crim 716.
• Kingston upon Hull Crown Court — convicted the applicant on 10 May 2021 and sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment on 25 August 2021.