R v Robert Brown

Evidence of an accused’s statements and conduct before an offence may be admitted under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 98 where it is truly relevant and close in time to the alleged offence. It may illuminate state of mind, intention and the lawfulness of subsequent violence without requiring a bad-character direction. In a causation case involving concurrent possible causes, it is enough that the unlawful acts made a significant contribution to death. Scientific inability to exclude an innocent alternative does not require withdrawal of the case where that alternative is merely theoretical or unlikely. The trial judge must respect the jury’s constitutional primacy in deciding such grey areas.

The applicant was convicted of murder at the Crown Court at Luton and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 19 years and 161 days. He renewed an application for leave to appeal after the Single Judge refused leave. He challenged the admission of pre-offence comments and messages concerning death, violence and women, arguing that they should have been treated as bad-character evidence and excluded or accompanied by an appropriate direction. He also challenged the refusal of a submission of no case to answer, arguing that the evidence did not establish that blunt-force trauma made a significant contribution to death rather than drug intoxication being the sole cause. The central issues were the admissibility of the evidence and whether the causation evidence was sufficient to leave the case to the jury.

The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal. It was satisfied that no ground was arguable and that the conviction was not unsafe.

1. Evidence of prior statements and conduct. The trial judge had carefully distinguished between admissible and inadmissible material. The admitted comments and messages were close in time to the killing and genuinely relevant to the applicant’s state of mind. They assisted the jury in assessing his intention and the lawfulness of the subsequent violence. Their probative value was not outweighed by prejudicial effect. The material was properly admitted under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as evidence to do with the facts of the offence. There was no rational basis for requiring a bad-character direction merely because the material might otherwise have been characterised in that way.
2. Causation and no case to answer. The correct causation test was whether the applicant’s unlawful acts made a significant contribution to death, even though drug intoxication might also have contributed. Following the guidance in R v Gian [2009] EWCA Crim 2553, expert evidence had to be considered in the context of all the relevant evidence and by reference to realistic possibilities. The fact that science could not exclude an innocent explanation did not require the case to be withdrawn where that explanation was merely theoretical or unlikely.
3. Role of the jury. In a grey-area case, the judge had to respect the constitutional primacy of the jury and avoid usurping its function, consistently with the guidance in R v Broughton [2020] EWCA Crim 1093. The trial judge had applied the correct half-time test. The timing of events, the evidence of repeated severe head injuries and the pathology evidence made it reasonably open to a properly directed jury to conclude that the injuries made a significant contribution to death.
4. The jury directions and summing-up were clear and fair. The applicant’s subsequent letters disclosed no further arguable ground. The renewed application was therefore refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 18 December 2025, the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. [2025] EWCA Crim 1779
2. Single Judge: Refused the original application for leave to appeal; the date and citation were not stated in the judgment.
3. Crown Court at Luton: The applicant was convicted of murder on 31 May 2024 and sentenced on 7 June 2024 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 19 years and 161 days.