R v Alan Ranns

Previous convictions admitted as bad-character evidence must have real probative value for the issue identified. Convictions for sexual offending committed decades earlier cannot correct a false impression about a defendant’s current lack of sexual interest merely because they show earlier sexual conduct. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 101(3) imposes a duty to exclude propensity evidence where admission would adversely affect trial fairness; it is not a discretion. Old convictions for materially different and more serious conduct may carry little or no probative value and substantial prejudice, particularly where the jury lacks meaningful factual detail or hears information intended to be withheld. Standard jury directions may not cure that prejudice. The court applied the approach in R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Guildford of three sexual assaults against EB, arising from allegations at his home on 11 July 2023, and acquitted of a fourth count concerning LB. The prosecution relied on convictions for rape in 1976 and for rape and indecent assault in 2012. The Recorder admitted them both to correct an alleged false impression that the appellant had no sexual interest and as evidence of propensity. The appeal challenged both gateways and the fairness of admitting convictions relating to much earlier, more serious conduct. The central issue was whether the convictions could assist the jury on the identified matters and, if so, whether their admission rendered the proceedings unfair.

The court allowed the appeal, holding the convictions unsafe, quashing the convictions on counts 1, 2 and 3, and ordering a retrial on all three counts.

1. False impression. Section 105(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 concerns an express or implied assertion apt to give a misleading impression, while section 105(6) limits evidence to what is necessary to correct it. The interview passages concerned the appellant’s present lack of sexual interest as a 72-year-old with health problems. Convictions for offending committed decades earlier, when he was much younger, could not assist in deciding whether that present impression was false and were incapable of correcting it. Their admission under section 101(1)(f) was therefore plainly wrong. The alleged remarks to the complainants were relied on for propensity, not as the basis of the false-impression gateway.
2. Propensity. Applying R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824, the court considered whether the convictions established the relevant propensity, whether that propensity made the current offending more likely, and whether reliance on the convictions would be unjust or unfair. The supposed parallel based on confinement had no probative force, and the jury had no factual detail about the earlier offences. The directions instead referred to sexual attraction to young women. The 1976 conviction did not disclose the victim’s age, the 2012 victim was substantially younger than the current complainants, and the lengthy interval did not support an inference about the appellant’s conduct in 2023. Admission under section 101(1)(d) was plainly wrong.
3. Fairness. Even if the convictions had some probative value, section 101(3) imposed a mandatory duty to exclude them where admission would have such an adverse effect on fairness that the court ought not to admit them. The convictions were very old, involved much more serious and materially different offending, and carried substantial prejudicial potential. The risk that the jury would hear the excluded age information materialised, and the jury were not told that the 2012 offences had occurred many years earlier. Conventional warnings could not cure the unfairness. It was unnecessary to decide the separate issue under section 103(3).

The court directed service of a fresh indictment within 28 days under rule 10.8(2) of the Criminal Procedure Rules, re-arraignment within two months, and determination of the retrial venue by a Presiding Judge. Bail was renewed on the previous conditions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 1233 , allowed the appeal, quashed the three convictions, ordered a retrial, directed service of a fresh indictment and renewed bail on the same conditions.
• Crown Court at Guildford: Before Recorder King and a jury, convicted the appellant on three sexual-assault counts on 16 January 2026 and acquitted him on a fourth count. Suspended custodial sentences were imposed on 24 April 2026.