The defendant appealed against his conviction of producing a controlled drug, namely cannabis. It was contended that the judge failed to provide guidance or directions to the jury as to how they ought to approach the text messages downloaded from the appellant’s telephone, and had wrongly admitted evidence of previous convictions.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Referring to the required direction (see R v Campbell): ‘the jury was not given a direction of this kind. Having reminded the jury of the prosecution case as regards this evidence – ‘The Crown say what you are looking at here is a picture of someone who is involved and interested in those various factors tending towards the cultivation of cannabis’ – the judge failed to add the warning as to the steps that the jury needed to follow when evaluating this material. Instead, the judge merely said ‘A matter entirely for you, as you read through those, what it is you make of it’.
Did that failure to give a bad character direction render the conviction unsafe? We are satisfied that the answer is ‘Yes’. This was a strong case against the appellant, but he had a clear and credible defence. This evidence, which tended to demonstrate previous involvement in the production of cannabis, was potentially very damaging to his case, and accordingly it was crucial that it was addressed appropriately during the summing up. It follows that this conviction has to be quashed.’
Fulford LJ
[2015] EWCA Crim 1565
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 98 101
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Campbell (K) CACD 26-Jun-2007
The defendant complained that the court, having admitted his previous convictions, had made only an inadequate distinction for the jury between its use as evidence of propensity as opposed to credibility.
Held: The appeal failed. Once the . .
Cited – Lowe v Regina CACD 14-Dec-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape, saying the judge had misused the bad character evidence.
Held: The judge had misdirected the jury and the conviction could not stand. He should have identified each element introduced . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Agyemang Admn 24-Jun-2009
The DPP appealed by case stated against a dismissal of a charge against the respondent following a driving incident. He complained of the admission of bad character evidence saying that it would be unfair under section 78 of the 1984 Act. The . .
Cited – Mullings v Regina CACD 1-Dec-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552733
