Introduction

Richards v Rex ([2022] EWCA Crim 1470) is a significant judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of England and Wales on November 8, 2022. The case revolves around the appellant, Emmanuel Richards, who was convicted on multiple charges including rape, grievous bodily harm, and controlling or coercive behavior in an intimate relationship. The primary issues on appeal pertained to the admissibility of Richards' past sexual convictions as bad character evidence, alleged non-disclosure by the prosecution, and the introduction of fresh evidence challenging the credibility of the complainant.

Summary of the Judgment

Richards was convicted of three counts of rape, grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and controlling behavior in a relationship. He appealed against his conviction and sentence on several grounds:

• The improper admission of old sexual convictions as bad character evidence.
• Alleged non-disclosure of material that could undermine the complainant's credibility.
• Introduction of fresh evidence potentially rendering the convictions unsafe.
• Assertion that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to failure to consider the principle of totality.

The Court of Appeal examined each ground meticulously, ultimately dismissing the appeal. The appellate court upheld the admission of past sexual convictions, rejected claims of non-disclosure, deemed the fresh evidence unreliable, and found the sentence to be proportionate.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key legal precedents to evaluate the admissibility of bad character evidence:

• R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824: Emphasized the significance of the date of commission over the date of conviction when assessing the admissibility of old convictions.
• R v Gillings [2019] EWCA Crim 1834: Provided a nuanced framework for evaluating the relevance and potential prejudice of old convictions, emphasizing their fact-specific nature.
• Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corpn [1948] 1 KB 223: Established the standard for judicial review of administrative decisions, introducing the "Wednesbury unreasonable" test.
• R v Beresford [1971] 56 Cr App 143: Outlined criteria for admitting fresh evidence, particularly focusing on the necessity and expediency in the interests of justice.

Legal Reasoning

The Court delved into the intricacies of sections 101(1)(d), 101(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 concerning the admissibility of bad character evidence. The central legal question was whether Richards' sexual convictions, some dating back to when he was a teenager, could be lawfully introduced to establish a propensity for sexual violence.

The judge at trial determined that despite the age of the convictions, they demonstrated a continuing propensity, particularly given the nature and similarity of the past offences to the charges at hand. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing that the judge appropriately exercised her discretion, weighed the probative value against potential prejudice, and provided clear jury directions.

Regarding non-disclosure, the court found that the prosecution had fulfilled its obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, dismissing claims that material linking the complainant to potential bribery was withheld. The fresh evidence introduced by Richards was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of credible corroboration.

On sentencing, the appellate court reviewed whether the principle of totality was appropriately applied. The cumulative offending and the severity of the harm inflicted justified the overall sentence imposed.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the thresholds for admitting old sexual convictions as bad character evidence. It underscores the court's discretion in balancing the probative value of such evidence against the risk of undue prejudice. The decision serves as a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over the admissibility of historical convictions, particularly those committed during adolescence.

Additionally, the judgment clarifies the obligations of the prosecution concerning disclosure, highlighting that comprehensive compliance is requisite to avoid claims of non-disclosure. The treatment of fresh evidence emphasizes the necessity for such evidence to be both credible and reasonably timely to influence appeals.

On the sentencing front, the affirmation of the principle of totality in this context provides guidance on structuring sentences that reflect the aggregate nature of offenses, especially in cases involving repeated and severe harm.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Bad Character Evidence

Bad character evidence refers to previous misconduct by a defendant that may suggest a propensity to behave in a certain way. In criminal trials, its admissibility is tightly regulated to ensure fairness. Section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows such evidence if it is relevant to an important matter in issue, like propensity.

Propensity

Propensity denotes a tendency or inclination to act in a particular way. In legal terms, showing propensity through bad character evidence aims to indicate that past behavior makes the defendant more likely to have committed the current offense.

Gateway in s.101(1)(d)

The phrase "gateway" refers to a specific condition or threshold that must be satisfied for certain evidence to be admissible. Under subsection (d) of section 101, the bad character evidence must be relevant to a significant issue like propensity.

Principle of Totality

The principle of totality ensures that when sentencing, the cumulative punishment for multiple offenses should not be excessive in relation to the individual sentences. It aims to prevent disproportionate sentencing when multiple charges are involved.

Wednesbury Unreasonableness

Derived from the case Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corpn, Wednesbury unreasonableness is a standard for judicial review where a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it. It sets a high threshold for appellate courts to overturn lower court decisions based solely on perceived unreasonableness.

Conclusion

The Richards v Rex judgment serves as a pivotal reference point for the admissibility of old sexual convictions in criminal proceedings. It elucidates the delicate balance courts must maintain between utilizing relevant past conduct to inform current allegations and safeguarding the defendant's right to a fair trial. By affirming the admissibility of Richards' past sexual convictions, the appellate court reinforced the judiciary's role in considering the totality of a defendant's actions, especially when they bear significant similarity to the charges at hand.

Moreover, the dismissal of claims regarding non-disclosure and the rejection of unreliable fresh evidence underscore the stringent standards required for evidence to influence appellate outcomes. The judgment reinforces existing legal principles while providing clarity on their application in complex scenarios involving historical misconduct and multiple severe offenses.

Ultimately, Richards v Rex reaffirms the courts' commitment to ensuring that justice is both served and seen to be served, maintaining rigorous standards for evidence admissibility and sentencing proportionality.