R v David King & Anor

Bad-character evidence may be admitted where it is relevant to important issues such as intention, state of mind and whether conduct was aggressive or defensive. Its probative value and potential unfairness may properly be assessed cumulatively, in the context of the evidence as a whole and the jury directions.

Changes to starting points for child offenders do not alter the applicable starting point for an adult offender to whom those changes do not apply. Sentencing must nevertheless reflect the age and maturity of a young adult. In a joint enterprise involving weapons, there is no distinction of principle at the starting-point stage between the person inflicting the fatal injury and a participant acting in concert with knowledge of the weapons, although individual culpability remains relevant to the final minimum term.

David King and his son, Edward King, were convicted at Ipswich Crown Court of the murder of Neil Charles. During a confrontation near their home, David inflicted the fatal stab wound with a dagger. Edward was nearby with a Samurai sword.

They renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction after the single judge’s refusal. They contended that four categories of bad-character evidence had been wrongly admitted: violent electronic messages, weapons held at the family home, Edward’s earlier conviction for threatening behaviour with a machete, and David’s aggressive conduct towards a neighbour.

Edward also sought an extension of time to appeal his life sentence and 19-year minimum term. He challenged the sentencing approach to young-adult maturity and to his role in the joint enterprise.

1. The renewed conviction applications were dismissed. The trial judge was entitled to admit all four categories of bad-character evidence under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The absence of an express reference to R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 did not itself disclose error.

2. The messages were capable of showing an entrenched hostile mindset towards thieves and a willingness to use unlawful, including lethal, violence. The weapons evidence was capable of showing an obsessive and unhealthy interest in weapons, relevant both to the credibility of the threats in the messages and to the applicants’ intentions. Edward’s earlier conviction and David’s conduct towards the neighbour similarly had real probative value on the issues identified.

3. The court held that the evidence could properly be evaluated both separately and cumulatively. Several strands were mutually supportive. The trial judge was not bound to exclude it under section 101(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Any risk of unfair prejudice was adequately addressed by the jury directions, and the convictions were not arguably unsafe.

4. Edward’s application for an extension of time to appeal sentence was refused. The increased starting points introduced for offenders under 18 by paragraph 5A of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 did not apply to him and could not reduce, or properly increase, his applicable starting point. The judge had made a significant reduction for his age and was entitled, having heard the trial, to assess his maturity despite the absence of a pre-sentence report.

5. On the judge’s findings, Edward and David had acted in a joint enterprise to cause at least really serious harm, each knowing that bladed weapons were carried. There was therefore no distinction of principle at the starting-point stage between Edward and the person who inflicted the fatal wound, though the judge had taken Edward’s particular role into account in fixing the final minimum term.

6. Following R v Sesay [2024] EWCA Crim 483, the court calculated the remand-time deduction and directed that the record state Edward’s minimum term as 17 years and 171 days.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In R v David King & Anor [2025] EWCA Crim 596, the court dismissed the renewed conviction applications, refused Edward King’s extension-of-time application concerning sentence, and corrected the recorded minimum term.

• Crown Court at Ipswich: David King and Edward King were convicted of murder on 30 May 2022. On 24 April 2023, HHJ Levett imposed life sentences, with minimum terms of 21 years and 19 years respectively, subject to remand-time deductions.