R v Sehawash Sedeqe

A defendant is entitled to a good character direction only if he or she is of good character or is properly treated as being of effective good character. Effective good character may extend to convictions that are old, minor and irrelevant to the charge, but that assessment is for the trial judge.

A defendant with convictions or cautions has no entitlement to either the credibility or propensity limb of the direction. The judge retains a broad discretion, governed by fairness, as to whether any modified direction should be given. An omission will not render a conviction unsafe where the jury were adequately equipped to assess the issue and the court is sure that the verdict would have been the same.

The appellant was convicted at Woolwich Crown Court of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He maintained that he had acted in self-defence when he punched the complainant after an altercation beside their vehicles.

His previous convictions and caution for drug-related offending were admitted by agreement. At the close of the evidence, the defence sought an effective good character direction, particularly on the absence of previous violence. The trial judge refused, although he reminded the jury in the factual summing-up that the appellant had no convictions for violence.

The appellant appealed against conviction. The central issue was whether the refusal of a good character direction, including a credibility direction, made the conviction unsafe.

Appeal dismissed. The conviction was safe.

1. Applying R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631, the court held that the appellant was neither of good character nor properly to be treated as of effective good character. His convictions were recent, were not minor, and had some relevance to the charge. He therefore had no entitlement to a good character direction.

2. Once the previous convictions had been voluntarily adduced under section 101(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, any modified direction remained within the trial judge’s broad discretion. Although the judge initially expressed his refusal forcefully, the court concluded that he understood that a propensity direction was open to him. His decision not to give one was within the proper ambit of that discretion.

3. The jury had nevertheless been reminded that the appellant had no convictions for violence. They could take that matter into account without a formal propensity direction. The court applied the observation in R v Hunter that jurors can be trusted to assess relevant character evidence and defence submissions.

4. The credibility-limb argument had not been advanced at trial and was raised too late on appeal. In any event, even assuming that either limb of a direction should have been given, there was no doubt that the jury would have reached the same verdict. The appellant’s conduct was captured on CCTV, and the issue was whether his account was credible when viewed against that footage and the complainant’s statement.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) The appeal against conviction was dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 611.
• Woolwich Crown Court On 4 August 2023, the appellant was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm. On 26 September 2023, he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for six months.