- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Phillips v REGINA
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from a conviction for conspiracy to cheat the Revenue, following an eight-week trial at Birmingham Crown Court before HHJ Inman QC. The appellant and co-defendant Thomas Scragg were charged with conspiring between December 2002 and April 2007 to defraud Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs by means including paying a workforce without tax and national insurance deductions, failing to account for such deductions, falsely representing subcontracting arrangements, and failing to account for VAT. The appellant and Thomas Scragg were convicted, while other defendants were acquitted.
The appellant’s conviction was challenged on the basis that the trial judge wrongly refused leave to admit evidence of the bad character of co-accused Thomas Scragg and Paul Scragg under section 101(1)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, resulting in an unfair trial and unsafe verdict. The appeal focuses on whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit this evidence and whether the appellant’s trial should have been severed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the bad character evidence sought to be adduced had "substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant" within the meaning of section 101(1)(e) Criminal Justice Act 2003;
- What discretion, if any, the trial judge possessed to decline to admit such evidence once the statutory criteria had been satisfied;
- Whether the judge, having refused to admit the evidence, should have severed the appellant’s trial from that of his co-accused;
- If the trial judge wrongly refused to admit the bad character evidence and/or wrongly failed to sever the appellant’s trial, whether the safety of the appellant’s conviction is undermined.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Randall [2004] UKHL 69 | Definition and assessment of relevance and probative value of evidence | Used to explain the concept of evidence being capable of increasing or diminishing the probability of a fact in issue and the need for substantial probative value for admissibility under section 101(1)(e). |
| Rafiq [2005] EWCA Crim 1423 | Application of section 101(1)(e) regarding bad character evidence between co-defendants | Referenced as part of the statutory framework governing admissibility of bad character evidence. |
| O'Dowd [2009] EWCA Crim 905 | Risks of satellite litigation and complexity in trials involving bad character evidence | Relied on to support the trial judge’s concern about the unmanageability of admitting multiple fraud allegations simultaneously. |
| Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 | Limits on allowing evidence of past events not charged on the indictment | Used to caution against diverting the trial into collateral issues unrelated to the indictment. |
| McKenzie [2008] EWCA Crim 758 | Admissibility of non-conviction bad character evidence and case complexity | Supported the judge’s assessment of the potential complexity and length of trial if such evidence is admitted. |
| Musone [2007] EWCA Crim 1237 | Interpretation of "substantial probative value" and absence of discretion to exclude once criteria met | Clarified that once statutory criteria are met, the judge has no discretion to exclude evidence on grounds of unfairness except in rare procedural breach cases. |
| Apabhai and Others [2011] EWCA Crim 917 | Meaning of "substantial probative value" under section 101(1)(e) | Adopted the interpretation that evidence must have more than trivial probative value but need not be conclusive. |
| Edwards and Others [2005] EWCA Crim 3244 | Limits on discretion to exclude bad character evidence introduced by defendants | Confirmed the lack of discretion to exclude evidence once statutory criteria are met. |
| Jarvis [2008] EWCA Crim 488 | Discretionary powers relating to bad character evidence | Reinforced the principle that no discretion exists to exclude evidence admitted under section 101(1)(e). |
| DM [2008] EWCA Crim 1544 | Risks of satellite issues complicating jury considerations of bad character evidence | Referenced to highlight the difficulties juries face when assessing multiple bad character issues. |
| Thompson and Others [1995] 2 Cr App R 589 | Relevance of bad character evidence in cut-throat defences | Noted as a pre-2003 Act authority on cross-examination and bad character evidence relevant to issues between defendants. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed statutory and case-law analysis of section 101(1)(e) Criminal Justice Act 2003, emphasizing that for bad character evidence of a co-defendant to be admissible, it must have substantial probative value regarding an important matter in issue between the defendants, which itself must be of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.
The Court clarified that "substantial probative value" means the evidence must have an enhanced capability to prove or disprove a fact in issue, surpassing mere relevance. The Court drew on authorities such as Randall and Braithwaite to explain this threshold and rejected interpretations that would dilute the statutory standard.
Applying these principles to the appellant’s case, the Court found that the evidence of Thomas Scragg’s prior involvement in CIS certificate fraud before the indictment period was substantially probative of an important issue between the appellant and Scragg—namely, whether the appellant was recruited into an existing fraudulent scheme. However, the evidence did not significantly address the central issue of whether the appellant was a knowing participant or an innocent front man.
The Court agreed with the trial judge’s refusal to admit other bad character evidence relating to later frauds (Raiment 1 and 2) and allegations of intimidation, as these were either not substantially probative of the issues between the defendants or would have rendered the trial unmanageable due to complexity and risk of satellite litigation.
The Court emphasized that once the statutory criteria for admissibility are met, the trial judge has no residual discretion to exclude the evidence on grounds of unfairness or case management, except in rare cases involving deliberate breaches of procedural rules (such as rule 35.5). The Court endorsed the trial judge’s approach to case management and the need to avoid complicating the trial with multiple fraud allegations not charged on the indictment.
Regarding severance, the Court held that the public interest favors joint trials where co-defendants blame each other, to prevent inconsistent verdicts and allow the jury to assess all allegations in context. Since the disputed evidence did not meet the statutory threshold, the issue of severance did not arise.
Finally, the Court analyzed the overall safety of the appellant’s conviction. It concluded that although the appellant was wrongly deprived of the opportunity to adduce some bad character evidence, this did not affect the fairness of the trial or the safety of the verdict. The evidence against the appellant was compelling and independent of the excluded evidence.
Holding and Implications
The Court DISMISSED the appellant’s appeal against conviction.
The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to cheat the Revenue. The Court confirmed the strict application of the statutory test under section 101(1)(e) Criminal Justice Act 2003 for admitting bad character evidence of a co-defendant, emphasizing that the trial judge lacks discretion to exclude such evidence once the criteria are met, except in cases of procedural breach. The ruling reinforces the importance of managing trial complexity and avoiding satellite litigation, but does not establish new precedent beyond the application of existing authorities.
Alert