R v Randall

Factual and Procedural Background

On 30th January 2002, in the Crown Court at St Albans, following a trial for murder, the Appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. The Appellant's co-accused, Defendant, was acquitted. The Appellant now appeals against conviction by leave of the single judge.

The victim, a 55-year-old male, was found unconscious and bleeding from head injuries near a pumping station. He had sustained nine separate blunt instrument blows and died a few days later from the cumulative effect of these injuries. At the time, the Appellant and Defendant were staying at the house of the Appellant's aunt, close to where the victim was found. The victim had visited the aunt's house intoxicated, leading to a struggle to eject him. The prosecution alleged that either or both the Appellant and Defendant inflicted the fatal injuries, constituting murder. The Appellant admitted physical contact but claimed self-defence and denied causing fatal injuries. Defendant denied physical contact outside the house and denied involvement in the attack.

The victim had an extensive criminal record and a history of violence. Defendant also had a serious criminal record and was on the run for armed robbery at the time. The Appellant knew of the victim but did not know him personally. There was evidence of animosity between Defendant and the victim, including an incident involving a gun at the aunt's house about a month prior.

On the night of the incident, the victim had been drinking heavily and was taken by taxi to the aunt’s house, where a confrontation occurred involving the Appellant and Defendant. Witnesses described a fight and observed the victim being kicked while prone. Blood evidence was found on Defendant’s clothing, and medical experts testified about the nature of the injuries, concluding they were consistent with kicks rather than a hammer.

Both the Appellant and Defendant gave multiple police interviews with conflicting accounts regarding their actions and involvement. Witnesses included the aunt, a former girlfriend of the Appellant, and others who testified about admissions and behavior of both accused. The jury was also informed of the Appellant's prior convictions for driving under the influence and disorderly behaviour.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge failed properly to direct the jury as to the relevance of Defendant's bad character.
2. Whether the trial judge failed properly to direct the jury as to the legal basis on which a verdict of manslaughter could be reached, particularly regarding intent.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erred by limiting the jury’s consideration of Defendant’s bad character only to assessing his truthfulness, rather than allowing it to be considered as relevant to the likelihood of Defendant having committed the fatal injuries.
• The Appellant’s defence was a cutthroat defence, asserting that Defendant inflicted the fatal injuries. Evidence of Defendant’s serious criminal record, including violence and dishonesty, was relevant to support this defence.
• The judge’s direction undermined the defence by stating that Defendant’s convictions were not relevant to the likelihood of him having committed the offence, despite no objection being raised to the admission of such evidence.
• The Appellant argued that the judge unfairly allowed evidence of the Appellant’s own violent past to be considered as propensity evidence, while excluding similar consideration of Defendant’s record.
• The Appellant submitted that the evidence of Defendant’s bad character was relevant to show which accused was more likely to have committed the serious violence.

Crown's Arguments

• The Crown submitted that propensity evidence is never probative of guilt.
• Even if propensity evidence were admissible, Defendant’s violent and dishonest offending was of a different character from the violence inflicted on the victim, and thus the judge’s direction was correct.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Lowery v R [1974] AC 85	Admissibility of bad character evidence by the accused to disprove guilt; distinction from Crown’s use of propensity evidence.	The court endorsed that evidence of a co-accused’s bad character can be relevant to show which version of events is more probable in a cutthroat defence.
Miller [1952] 36 Cr App R 169	General principle that previous convictions are not normally relevant to prove guilt.	Referenced as foundational authority on relevance of bad character evidence.
Neale [1977] 65 Cr App R 304	Strict application of relevance test to bad character evidence to avoid prejudice to co-defendants.	Emphasized the need for strict relevance assessment when multiple defendants are involved.
Bracewell [1978] 68 Cr App R 44	Reinforces strict relevance test for admission of bad character evidence in multi-defendant cases.	Supported the principle that irrelevant bad character evidence should be excluded to prevent injustice.
Murray (The Times, 24 June 1994)	Admissibility of convictions of a third party to support defence credibility.	Illustrated that bad character evidence of others can be relevant to the accused’s defence.
Thompson and others [1995] 2 Cr App R 589	Summary of principles governing admissibility of bad character evidence and relevance tests.	Adopted by the court to frame the applicable legal principles in the present case.
Lee [1976] 62 Cr App R 33	Admissibility of bad character evidence of others not called as witnesses.	Supported the principle that bad character evidence can be relevant even if the person is not a witness.
DPP v P [1991] 2 AC 447	Endorsed the use of disposition reasoning in bad character evidence.	Confirmed that evidence of disposition is admissible to prove innocence or guilt.
Vye [1993] 97 Cr App R 134	Defendant’s right to call evidence of good character in disproof of guilt.	Referenced in relation to the right to adduce relevant character evidence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the relevance and admissibility of bad character evidence in the context of a cutthroat defence where the Appellant sought to attribute the fatal injuries to the co-accused Defendant. The court acknowledged the fundamental principle that previous convictions are generally not relevant to prove guilt but distinguished that principle when the accused adduces such evidence to disprove his own guilt.

The court recognized that in this case, the Appellant’s defence was that Defendant inflicted the fatal injuries, and that Defendant’s serious criminal record, including violence and dishonesty, was relevant to assess the credibility of competing versions of events. The trial judge’s direction limiting the jury’s consideration of Defendant’s convictions only to assessing his truthfulness was found to be an erroneous restriction on the relevance of that evidence.

The court reviewed key authorities, including Lowery and DPP v P, confirming that evidence of a co-accused’s bad character may be relevant in a cutthroat defence to show which version is more probable. The court also noted that the judge had allowed evidence of the Appellant’s prior violence to be considered as propensity evidence but had not extended the same consideration to Defendant’s record, thereby creating an imbalance.

The court concluded that the judge’s misdirection was of considerable significance to the Appellant’s case, given the way the defence was presented. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and a retrial was ordered.

Regarding the second ground of appeal on the manslaughter direction, the court found that although the judge initially omitted reference to manslaughter in the summing up, a full and comprehensive direction was given at the end, which the jury clearly understood, as evidenced by the verdict. Therefore, no error was found on this ground.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL on the first ground and ordered a RE-TRIAL due to the misdirection concerning the relevance of Defendant’s bad character evidence.

The second ground of appeal regarding the manslaughter direction was REJECTED.

The decision directly affects the parties by granting the Appellant a new trial. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of established principles to the facts of this case.