Hunter & Ors v REGINA

Factual and Procedural Background

This legal opinion consolidates five unrelated appeals heard together due to their common issue concerning the extent and nature of the good character direction in criminal trials. The appeals involve various defendants tried in Crown Courts across England, each with differing facts but united by questions of how good character evidence should be directed to juries. The opinion provides a detailed review of the development of case law and statutory provisions relating to good character directions, including significant judgments such as Vye, Aziz, and Aziz-related appellate decisions, as well as the impact of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The opinion then applies these principles to each appellant’s case, addressing their factual circumstances, trial directions, grounds of appeal, and the court’s analysis and conclusions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the appropriate scope and content of the good character direction to be given by trial judges in criminal cases?
2. Under what circumstances is a defendant entitled to a full or modified good character direction, particularly when previous convictions or other reprehensible conduct exist?
3. How should trial judges exercise their discretion in giving or withholding good character directions, especially post the Criminal Justice Act 2003?
4. What are the consequences of misdirection or omission of good character directions on the safety of convictions?
5. How should appellate courts approach challenges to good character directions in light of precedent and statutory changes?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The law on good character directions is settled and should not be refined; it is essential for ensuring fairness and preventing miscarriages of justice by providing balanced jury directions.
• Defendants who adduce evidence of their good character, especially where the Crown has not introduced bad character evidence under section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, are entitled as of right to a good character direction.
• The omission or inadequacy of a good character direction is always fatal to the safety of a conviction, particularly where credibility of witnesses is central to the case.
• Failure to give a proper good character direction risks inconsistency and undermines clarity in trial judge directions.

Respondent's Arguments

• The law has been extended unjustifiably beyond the original principles in Vye and Aziz, particularly regarding defendants with previous convictions.
• Defendants with previous convictions do not have good character and are not entitled to good character directions as of right; the trial judge has a broad discretion in such cases.
• Where defendants have admitted reprehensible conduct or have bad character evidence, the judge’s discretion to give or withhold directions remains and should be exercised in light of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
• Many appellate interventions have been too ready and inconsistent with the original principles, and fairness to the public and maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system must be balanced against defendants’ interests.
• Failure to give a good character direction is not necessarily fatal; the safety of the conviction depends on the facts and strength of evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a comprehensive review of the development of legal principles relating to good character directions, tracing their evolution from early 20th century practice through key appellate decisions such as Vye and Aziz, and statutory reforms under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It identified that the principles initially arose from a need to ensure fairness in jury summations, particularly safeguarding defendants from unbalanced presentations of evidence.

The court recognized that good character directions consist of two limbs: one relating to the defendant’s credibility and the other to propensity to commit the offence charged. It reaffirmed that defendants with absolute good character—no prior convictions or reprehensible conduct—are entitled to both limbs of the direction. For defendants with previous convictions deemed old, minor, and irrelevant, judges have discretion to treat them as having effective good character, thereby entitling them to modified directions.

The court emphasized that defendants with bad character, including relevant prior convictions or other reprehensible conduct, are not entitled as of right to good character directions; the trial judge has a broad, open-textured discretion in such cases. The court rejected prior decisions extending good character directions to defendants with bad character as inconsistent with foundational principles and statutory context.

The court also addressed the impact of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which introduced a structured approach to bad character evidence admissibility, affecting how good character directions should be given. It stressed that judges must tailor directions to the facts and avoid giving absurd or meaningless directions, consistent with Lord Steyn’s guidance in Aziz.

Regarding misdirections or omissions, the court held that no fixed rule applies. The safety of a conviction depends on the facts of each case and the overall fairness of the summing-up. The court cautioned against assuming juries disregard relevant evidence without explicit judicial endorsement and urged trust in jurors’ common sense.

In applying these principles to the individual appeals, the court carefully analyzed the factual circumstances, prior convictions, directions given, and the strength of evidence. It found that in cases where defendants had significant prior convictions or admitted reprehensible conduct, no entitlement to positive good character directions arose. Where directions were given or omitted, the court assessed whether any misdirection undermined the safety of the conviction, often concluding that strong evidence and fair overall summations rendered convictions safe.

The court also highlighted the importance of procedural compliance, recommending early discussions between advocates and judges regarding character evidence and directions to avoid uncertainty and appeals.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final rulings on the individual appeals were to DISMISS the appeals against conviction, finding that the directions given or omitted did not render the convictions unsafe in the circumstances of each case.

Implications of this decision include a reaffirmation and clarification of the principles governing good character directions in criminal trials. The court emphasized that:

• Only defendants of absolute or effective good character are entitled to good character directions as of right.
• Judges retain broad discretion to give, modify, or withhold such directions in cases involving previous convictions or reprehensible conduct, particularly in light of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
• Failure to give a good character direction is not automatically fatal; appellate courts must assess the impact on the safety of the conviction based on the particular facts and evidence.
• The decision calls for restraint in appellate interference with trial judge discretion and encourages trust in juries’ ability to fairly assess evidence.
• Procedural best practices, including early notice and discussion of character evidence, are encouraged to promote consistency and reduce appeals.

No new precedent was established; rather, the court sought to correct misunderstandings and overextensions of existing principles, promoting clarity and consistency in future trials and appeals.