R v BQX

The prosecution should ordinarily call all available evidence probative of guilt before closing its case. That practice rule is subject to exceptions. A trial judge may admit evidence later where the interests of justice require it, but the discretion must be exercised with care and caution. Late admission must not become a means of excusing poor police or prosecution practice. In a rare case, the court may admit late bad character evidence to correct a false impression created by the defendant, particularly where the defendant knew the true position, the evidence is materially probative, and the resulting prejudice is minimal.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Chester of 24 historic sexual offences against five male complainants and received a total sentence of 12 years. The prosecution had permission to rely on several items of bad character evidence. During cross-examination, the applicant presented his earlier Irish convictions as the product of youthful immaturity, curiosity and naïveté, and denied a sexual interest in young boys.

The prosecution then sought to adduce details of a further Irish conviction for 20 sexual offences. The conviction had been known to the police before trial but had been overlooked by both sides. The judge admitted the evidence under section 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and maintained that ruling after the timing of the prosecution's knowledge emerged. The central issue was whether the judge had been entitled to admit the evidence after the close of the prosecution case.

1. Applications refused. The late evidence did not render the convictions unsafe. The trial judge had a discretion to admit further prosecution evidence after the close of the prosecution case.
2. The ordinary practice rule, recognised in Rice [1963] 1 QB 847, is that evidence available to the prosecution and probative of guilt should be called before the prosecution closes its case. The evidence of the further conviction was available in advance, and the details of the earlier offences could readily have been obtained before trial. The rule is one of practice, not law, and is subject to exceptions.
3. The discretion must be exercised with care and caution. Courts must avoid encouraging the belief that poor police or prosecution practice can be cured by late admission of evidence. As explained in Graham [2019] EWCA 2141, however, a nuanced, fact-sensitive approach based on the interests of justice may be appropriate in exceptional circumstances.
4. The judge was entitled to conclude that the applicant had created a false impression about the nature of his earlier offending and his attitude towards sexual activity with young boys. The further conviction was relevant and probative of the issue raised by that impression. The applicant knew of the conviction and had sought to minimise the propensity shown by his offending.
5. This was a rare case in which admission was justified. The prosecution case was already strong, the jury had properly heard other powerful propensity evidence, and any additional prejudice from the further conviction was minimal. Admission was therefore in the interests of justice and necessary to rebut the misleading impression.

The applications for leave to appeal against conviction and for a representation order were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2025] EWCA Crim 155: The applicant renewed his applications for leave to appeal against conviction and for a representation order. The applications were refused.
• Crown Court at Chester: The applicant was convicted on 5 September 2023 and sentenced on 10 November 2023. The trial judge admitted further bad character evidence after the close of the prosecution case.