R v Alexander Thomas Windsor

Under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 101(1)(d), an earlier conviction may be admitted to prove propensity where it bears on a real issue between prosecution and defence. The court must assess whether it establishes propensity for offences of the kind charged, whether that propensity makes guilt more likely, and whether admission would be unjust or unfair.

A single and old conviction may still be probative. This may be so where it involved cheating the Revenue with persons implicated in the later allegation and bears on a defence that the defendant was an innocent dupe. Differences between the defendant’s roles in the earlier and later offending do not necessarily prevent that conclusion.

The applicant sought renewed permission to appeal against convictions at Southwark Crown Court for two conspiracies to cheat His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs by evading alcohol duty and VAT. The trial began in October 2022 and the applicant was convicted on 8 March 2023.

The prosecution alleged a sophisticated alcohol-diversion fraud in 2009 and 2010. The applicant was a director and shareholder of cash-and-carry businesses that received much of the alcohol. His defence was that others, including Avtar Hare and Ken Hare, had deceived him and that he was concerned only with administration.

At trial, the judge admitted the applicant’s 1997 conviction for excise-duty evasion involving the Hare brothers and another defendant. The central issue was whether that conviction was properly admitted as bad-character evidence.

1. The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.

2. Under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the previous conviction was relevant to an important matter in issue. The applicant’s defence made it necessary to decide whether he was a knowing participant or had been deceived by others. A previous conviction for cheating the Revenue with some of those persons made participation in the charged conspiracies more likely.

3. Applying the three inquiries identified in R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824, the trial judge was entitled to find that the conviction showed a propensity to commit offences of cheating the Revenue and a propensity to act with the named defendants. Its age, the fact that it was a single conviction, and differences between the applicant’s earlier transport role and his later role in operating cash-and-carry businesses did not undermine that conclusion.

4. The court also accepted the appellate approach explained in R v Hanson: where the trial judge has directed himself correctly on admissibility, an appellate court will intervene only if the ruling was plainly wrong or unreasonable. No such error was shown.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) On a renewed application following refusal by the single judge, the court refused permission to appeal against conviction: [2024] EWCA Crim 798.

• Southwark Crown Court The applicant was convicted on 8 March 2023 after a trial which began on 26 October 2022. No citation for that decision was stated.