BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Laws-Chapman v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1851 (25 October 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/1851.html Cite as: [2013] EWCA Crim 1851 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM Maidstone Crown Court
His Honour Judge Griffith-Jones QC
T20127384
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE BURNETT
and
MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM
____________________
William George Laws-Chapman |
||
- and - |
||
Regina |
____________________
Miss S Ellis (instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 25 September 2013
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Fulford :
Introduction
The issue on the appeal
The background
The application to introduce evidence bad character
[…] the defendant has a propensity to commit sexual offences of the type charged in the current case. The facts of the current case are very similar to the incident of bad character. It is alleged in this case that the defendant sexually abused a 13 year old boy in the same café that featured in the 1985 case. It is also alleged that he committed buggery with the same victim on a separate occasion. These offences took place in 1978.
This evidence supports the prosecution case that the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the type, or identical to those alleged in the this case and that that propensity makes it more likely that the defendant committed the offences with which he is charged.
The ruling
[…] founded primarily upon Gateway D, in that it is said that the evidence is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution, that issue being (as contemplated by Section 103) whether the defendant had a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is now charged; more particularly whether he had a sexual interest in boys and an inclination for buggery. I should say that a second strand of propensity also alleged, namely a propensity to be untruthful. That is on the basis that his conviction came after a trial, he having denied the 1985 offence.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the fact that the conviction does provide evidence from which the jury could properly conclude that the defendant had a sexual interest in boys and moreover was inclined towards buggery.
The relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Section 101
(1) In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant's bad character is admissible if, but only if –
[…]
(d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution,
[…]
(f) it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, or
(g) the defendant has made an attack on another person's character.
Section 103
(1) For the purposes of section 101(1)(d) the matters in issue between the defendant and the prosecution include –
(a) the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit the offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence;
(b) the question whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful, except where it is not suggested that the defendant's case is untruthful in any respect.
(2) Where subsection (1)(a) applies, a defendant's propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged may (without prejudice to any other way of doing so) be established by evidence that he has been convicted of –
(a) an offence of the same description as the one with which he is charged, or
(b) an offence in the same category as the one with which he is charged.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply in the case of a particular defendant if the court is satisfied, by reason of the length of time since the conviction or for any other reason, that it would be unjust for it to apply in his case.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) two offences are of the same description as each other if the statement of the offence in a written charge or indictment would, in each case, be in the same terms;
(b) two offences are of the same category as each other if they belong to the same category of offences prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State.
[…]
Section 105
(1) For the purposes of section 101(1)(f) –
(a) the defendant gives a false impression if he is responsible for the making of an express or implied assertion which is apt to give the court or jury a false or misleading impression about the defendant;
(b) evidence to correct such an impression is evidence which has probative value in correcting it.
(2) A defendant is treated as responsible for the making of an assertion if –
(a) the assertion is made by the defendant in the proceedings (whether or not in evidence given by him),
(b) the assertion was made by the defendant –
(i) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is charged, or
[…]
Section 106
(1) For the purposes of section 101(1)(g) a defendant makes an attack on another person's character if—
(a) he adduces evidence attacking the other person's character,
(b) he (or any legal representative appointed under section 38(4) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c. 23) to cross-examine a witness in his interests) asks questions in cross-examination that are intended to elicit such evidence, or are likely to do so, or
(c) evidence is given of an imputation about the other person made by the defendant—
(i) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is charged, or
(ii) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it.
(2) In subsection (1) "evidence attacking the other person's character" means evidence to the effect that the other person—
(a) has committed an offence (whether a different offence from the one with which the defendant is charged or the same one), or
(b) has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a reprehensible way;
and "imputation about the other person" means an assertion to that effect.
(3) […]
The summing up
"You have heard that in November 1985 the defendant was convicted of an offence of buggery on a 17 year old boy and that the offence was committed in the back room at the same café where [SB] says he met the defendant and the incident in Count 1 took place. The reason why you have heard about that is principally because the Crown say it contradicts the impression which you may think the defendant gave during his interviews when to the allegations being put to him you may think he suggested that he was not the sort of person to do something like that. The Crown say, on the contrary, his conviction demonstrates that he was someone with a particular side to his character, which included having a sexual interest in boys and being inclined to act pursuant to that sexual interest, even to the extent of buggery.
This is something which you will wish to consider, bearing in mind that his history reveals only one such conviction in 1985 with nothing similar in his record before or since, and also that his victim on that occasion was aged 17. If you are not sure that he had that side to his character then the Crown's point simply does not arise and you should consider it no further. If, however, you are sure that he was someone at the material time did have that side to his character you are entitled to consider whether that makes it more likely that he acted as [SB] said he did towards him in the late 1970s, initially in the same back room at that café. Again, that is something for you to consider. It is a matter for you.
There is further reason why you heard of the defendant's conviction, and it is this, it has been part of the defence case to suggest that [SB] may have made a terrible mistake and that the true culprit who abused him may have been not this defendant but someone else, in particular Roy Reynolds, who, you have heard, has numerous convictions for sexual offences, they are listed now in your admissions. In the circumstances it is thought right that you should know about the defendant's conviction so you are not misled in any way when weighing all the evidence, and in particular when considering the relative likelihood of the defendant and Mr Reynolds being the man referred to by [SB], something you will do, of course, in the light of all of the evidence you have heard.
Although you know of the defendant's conviction, it is important that you do not attach too much importance to it. Plainly, you must not conclude that because of it he must be guilty or either of these offences with which he is now charged, and it obviously does not follow that just because the defendant behaved in a certain way in 1985 he behaved in a similar fashion on either of the two occasions here alleged. You must consider your verdicts in each case in the light of all the evidence about what happened on each occasion respectively. In considering all the evidence, however, you are entitled to have regard to the fact that the defendant has this conviction in 1985 to the extent that you feel it helps you in the manner in which I have directed you."
The submissions
Discussion