Admissibility and Cumulative Assessment of Bad Character Evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Introduction

In R v King & Anor [2025] EWCA Crim 596, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) addressed renewed appeals by David King (age 56) and his son Edward King (age 20) against their convictions for the murder of Neil Charles. Convicted after a jury trial at Ipswich Crown Court and sentenced to life imprisonment with lengthy minimum terms, the appellants challenged the safety of their convictions on the single ground that “bad character” evidence had been wrongly admitted. Edward King also applied for an extension of time to appeal his sentence. This commentary examines the judgment’s new precedent on the cumulative admission of bad character evidence under sections 98–101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003), and its ramifications for future criminal trials.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed both applications. It held that the trial judge had correctly admitted four strands of non-conviction “bad character” evidence—(1) hostile electronic messages, (2) cache of weapons, (3) Edward’s prior conviction for threatening behaviour with a machete, and (4) David’s aggressive behaviour towards a neighbor—under section 101(1)(d) CJA 2003. Each strand had significant probative value concerning the defendants’ intent and state of mind, and any risk of unfair prejudice was neutralized by jury directions. The sentencing appeal and extension of time application were also refused. The court calculated Edward’s final minimum term as 17 years and 171 days, reflecting credit for time on remand.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824: Established the three-stage test for admissibility of bad character evidence under CJA 2003 sections 98–101.
R v Fox [2009] EWCA Crim 653: Held that distant, private thoughts in a notebook lacked sufficient probative value to qualify as bad character.
R v Osbourne [2007] EWCA Crim 481: Warned against treating mere aggressive shouting as reprehensible; contrasted with the present facts.
R v Kelly [2012] 1 WLR 55 and R v Height [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 656: Confirmed that, in joint enterprise, the person who delivers the fatal blow and accomplices share culpability when acting in concert.
R v Sesay [2024] EWCA Crim 483: Directed sentencers to perform arithmetic for minimum terms and credit for remand, a practice applied in the addendum to this judgment.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in two principal stages: first, the safety of the convictions; second, the sentencing challenge.

Assessment of Bad Character Evidence:
- The trial judge had applied section 101(1)(d) CJA 2003 to admit evidence relevant to “important matters in issue”—namely the defendants’ intent, state of mind, and whether their conduct was defensive or aggressive.
- He addressed statutory requirements under section 101 and the discretion under section 78 of PACE, weighed relevance against prejudice, and gave detailed jury directions.
- The Court of Appeal endorsed a cumulative approach: individual strands need not be assessed in isolation when their combined force strengthens probative value.
- Each category—violent messages, arsenal of weapons, Edward’s prior conviction, David’s aggressive conduct—was demonstrably connected to the key factual issues and more probative than prejudicial.
Sentencing and Extension of Time:
- Edward’s late application was considered on its merits. The court found no arguable error in the judge’s refusal of uplifted starting points introduced for under-18s by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, since Edward was 18 at the offence date and convicted prior to the amendments.
- The judge applied a 25-year starting point (Schedule 21, paragraph 4(1), Sentencing Act 2020) for a fatal stabbing in joint enterprise, reducing to 19 years for Edward’s youth. The Court of Appeal found no flaw in this exercise of discretion.
- In line with R v Sesay, the court performed the remand arithmetic, arriving at a minimum term of 17 years and 171 days.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision clarifies and reinforces several principles:

Trial judges may admit multiple strands of non-conviction bad character evidence under section 101(1)(d) if each is probative of key issues; cumulative relevance can outweigh potential prejudice.
There is no requirement to analyze each item in isolation; a holistic assessment is permitted.
Good character directions and evidence may mitigate prejudice but do not bar admission of relevant bad character evidence.
Sentencers must adhere to updated procedural norms—such as calculating and announcing the post-remand minimum term—and may not infer downward pressure from inapplicable legislative amendments.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Bad Character Evidence:: Under CJA 2003, evidence of misconduct unrelated to the charged offence can be admitted if it is relevant to an “important matter” (e.g., intent or honesty) and its probative value outweighs any unfair prejudice.
Section 101(1)(d):: Allows admission of bad character evidence when it is “relevant to an important matter in issue between the prosecution and defense.”
Section 78 PACE:: Gives courts discretion to exclude evidence if its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings.
Joint Enterprise:: A legal principle holding all participants in a共同 plan liable for crimes committed in furtherance of that plan, regardless of who delivered the fatal act.
Remand Credit:: Days spent in custody before sentencing can be deducted from the minimum term of a custodial sentence.

Conclusion

R v King & Anor establishes a durable precedent on the cumulative assessment of bad character evidence under the CJA 2003. It confirms that multiple non-conviction evidence strands—hostile communications, weapons possession, prior convictions, and pattern of aggression—may be admitted when each meets statutory relevance and proportionality tests. The judgment also underscores the necessity of clear jury directions, thoughtful balancing of probative value against prejudice, and precise sentencing arithmetic. In so doing, it offers comprehensive guidance for trial judges, advocates, and future appellate scrutiny in criminal prosecutions involving contested character evidence.