Extending Propensity: R v Blackman [2025] EWCA Crim 965 and the Admissibility of Dated Juvenile Drug-Supply Convictions

1. Introduction

R v Blackman is a 2025 judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) which revisits the controversial topic of admitting an accused’s previous convictions as “bad character evidence” to show propensity. The appellant, Blackman, challenged his convictions for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply, arguing that the trial judge at Woolwich Crown Court had wrongly admitted two sets of old convictions—one committed when he was only 14. The Court of Appeal, constituted by Lord Justice Holgate and two others, dismissed the appeal and in doing so:

• Affirmed the flexible, context-sensitive approach set out in R v Hanson but
• Clarified that very old juvenile convictions can still be probative of propensity where they fit a “sequence” of similar offending, and especially where lengthy gaps correspond with periods of detention.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Blackman pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis and was convicted after trial of possessing heroin and cocaine with intent to supply. On appeal he alleged three errors:

1. The earlier convictions did not demonstrate a relevant propensity (Ground 1).
2. The 2009 juvenile convictions were too old and committed when he was too young (Ground 2).
3. Their admission unfairly bolstered a weak prosecution case (Ground 3).

Applying Hanson, the Court held that:

• The 2015 supply convictions were “certainly capable” of showing a tendency to street-deal Class A drugs.
• The 2009 convictions, though juvenile and dated, formed part of a “sequence” which retained probative value.
• The trial judge’s discretionary assessment under s 101(3) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (whether admission would adversely affect fairness) was not “plainly wrong” or Wednesbury unreasonable.

Outcome: All three grounds failed; the conviction was safe; the appeal was dismissed; and a reporting restriction under s 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 was lifted.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824; [2005] 1 WLR 3169
  The leading case on admitting previous convictions to establish propensity. Hanson set three core questions: (i) Are the convictions relevant and probative? (ii) Are they too old or few? (iii) Would admission impact fairness under s 101(3)? Blackman builds upon Hanson by illustrating how sequence and context (periods in custody) can mitigate the “aged” factor.
• R v Renda [2005] EWCA Crim 2826; [2006] 1 Cr App R 24
  Cited for the appellate standard of review: the Court will not interfere unless the judge’s decision was “plainly wrong or Wednesbury unreasonable.” Holgate LJ repeatedly referenced this threshold when upholding the trial judge’s discretion.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Statutory Framework

Section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows admission of evidence of bad character if it is relevant to an important matter between prosecution and defence, namely the defendant’s propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged. Under s 101(3) the court must exclude such evidence where its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings that it ought not to be admitted. Section 101(4) lists factors the court must consider, including the time gap.

3.2.2 Application to Blackman

1. Nature and Similarity of Offences: Both earlier sets of convictions involved possession of the same Class A drugs (heroin, cocaine/crack) with intent to supply. This homogeneity was pivotal; the Court described them as “certainly capable” of establishing a tendency.
2. Passage of Time & Juvenility: While 16 and 8 years had elapsed, the Court stressed that gaps largely coincided with Blackman’s detention. Hence, the apparent lapse in offending was “less telling”.
3. Sequence of Offending: 2009-2015-2022 formed a continuous thread of similar behaviour, bolstering probative value and mitigating the concern that the 2009 offences were isolated youthful indiscretions.
4. Fairness (s 101(3)): The judge balanced probative value against prejudice, concluding the prosecution case was independently strong: expert evidence, quantities, packaging, two phones, evasive conduct, and silence in interview. Admission therefore did not “unfairly bolster a weak case”.
5. Appellate Deference: Given that the Recorder had directed herself correctly, the Court would interfere only if her exercise of discretion was perverse. It was “reasonably open” to her to admit both sets of convictions.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

R v Blackman is likely to reverberate in three concentric circles:

1. Youthful Offending & Propensity: Prosecutors may now place greater reliance on juvenile convictions, even when long-dated, provided they align closely with the charged conduct and are part of an identifiable pattern.
2. Temporal Gaps Explained by Detention: Defence arguments premised on “clean periods” between offences will be scrutinised for whether the defendant was incarcerated during those intervals. Periods of enforced inactivity will not necessarily weaken probative value.
3. Strength of Prosecution Case: Trial judges must continue to ask whether bad character evidence merely “bolsters a weak case”. Blackman endorses a holistic evaluation, allowing admission where the Crown already has a multi-strand evidential base.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Bad Character Evidence: Information about a defendant’s previous misconduct. Admissible only under specific statutory gateways; here, s 101(1)(d).
• Propensity: A tendency to behave in a particular way. Previous similar offences can show propensity to commit the offence charged.
• Wednesbury Unreasonable: A decision so irrational that no reasonable judge could have made it. Sets the bar for appellate interference with trial-level discretion.
• MG5: Police case summary form. Its absence for the 2009 convictions limited detail but did not preclude admissibility.
• Section 4(2) Order (Contempt of Court Act 1981): Allows a court to postpone reporting to avoid prejudice; discharged once appeal concluded.

5. Conclusion

R v Blackman reinforces the discretionary, fact-sensitive nature of admitting bad character evidence while demonstrating that youthful, dated convictions can retain potency where they form part of a continuing narrative of similar offending. The judgment:

• Affirms Hanson but expands its application to sequences involving juvenile offences.
• Stresses that periods of incarceration may explain apparent “gaps” in criminality.
• Offers further reassurance to trial judges that robust reasoning, not mechanical exclusion by age, governs admissibility.

Practitioners should take note: when the prosecution can articulate a clear, logical chain linking past and present conduct, even long-ago offences—committed in youth—may justifiably reach the jury.