The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He had claimed self defence. A main issues for the jury was who had produced the knife which caused the fatal injuries. The appellant had previous convictions for, other offences of violence with weapons, and these were introduced by the appellant in his own evidence and were therefore admitted under the 2003 Act. They wereold, and he said he was reformed. His partner, had made a much more recent statement to the police that the appellant had made a threat to slit her throat with a knife. Other aspects of the same incident had led to a conviction in 2003 for criminal damage but no proceedings had been taken for the alleged threat to kill. The prosecution made a successful application to cross-examine the appellant upon that threat. Ms Daley was called to give evidence in support of the appellant’s defence. She was cross examined upon the contents of her 2003 statement and grudgingly admitted that the appellant had at that time been in possession of a penknife and that the contents of her statement were true. Prosecuting counsel, in his final address, invited the jury to conclude that the appellant’s previous convictions and behaviour made it more likely that he produced the knife which led to the deceased’s death. The judge directed the jury that in deciding whether it was the deceased or the appellant who produced the knife the jury could take account both of the appellant’s previous convictions and the altercation with Samantha Daley.
He argued that the jury should have been directed that before they could act on her evidence they must be sure that the threats were made.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge should have address in his summing up the issues (1) for what purpose the evidence could be used by the jury once admitted and (2) whether there was a danger that the jury might use the evidence for a purpose which was inappropriate and, for that reason, instruct the jury as to its limitations. He had been in error in failing to address with the jury whether any of the bad character evidence was capable of establishing a relevant propensity and, if so, to provide them with appropriate bad character warnings. If not, the jury should have been warned against using the evidence for that purpose. As to the 2003 incident the jury should have received a direction that they could not act upon her evidence for any purpose unless they were sure the appellant had uttered the threats she had claimed in her statement.
However, the conviction was safe. The judge had emphasised to the jury that historical matters were purely background; they should concentrate upon the evidence in proof of the offence charged.
Judges:
Hooper, LJ, Forbes, Pitchford JJ
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Crim 3238, [2009] Crim LR 809
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Najib v Regina CACD 12-Feb-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that the court had given inadequate directions as to his ‘no comment’ interview, the need to treat the evidence of a co-accused with caution, and the need for a bad character direction. . .
Cited – Mitchell, Regina v SC 19-Oct-2016
Appeal against conviction for murder. Evidence was agreed with her representatives as to previous acts using knives, but was presented despite withdrawal by her of her consent. The prosecution now appealed against the quashing of the conviction.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.291885