Bogdanovic, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from the conviction of the Appellant, aged 55, following a trial in the Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames before Judge Lodder QC. The Appellant was convicted on two counts: (1) being concerned in supplying a Class A controlled drug contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and (2) possessing criminal property contrary to section 329(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Appellant had earlier pleaded guilty to failing to provide a non-intimate sample for drugs testing while in police detention, contrary to section 63B(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, with leave to appeal refused on a renewed application.

The Appellant's co-accused, Defendant, pleaded guilty to the same first two offences and received a sentence of 4 years and 8 months' imprisonment.

On 27 March 2018, police observed Defendant driving a van with the Appellant later seen as front passenger. A stop and search uncovered a large quantity of cash (30,060) and approximately 999 grams of 90% pure cocaine in the van. Both were arrested on suspicion of money laundering and possession with intent to supply. The Appellant refused a drugs test and gave a prepared statement denying ownership of the seized items but otherwise declined to answer questions.

The prosecution case was that the Appellant brought the full amount of 30,560 cash into the van intending to purchase the cocaine from Defendant. Evidence included Defendant’s guilty pleas, CCTV footage of the Appellant holding a bag identical to one found in the van, text messages on the Appellant’s phone indicative of drug supply involvement, body-worn video showing the discovery of the cash and cocaine, and communications between the Appellant and Defendant.

The Appellant’s defence was that he intended only to purchase 5 grams of cocaine for personal use and had brought only 500 cash in an envelope for that purpose. He asserted that Defendant placed the larger sum of money into the bags in the van without his knowledge.

The central factual issue for the jury was whether the Appellant was in possession of the 30,060 cash at the point he entered the van, as possession of that sum would imply knowledge of and intent to purchase the kilogram of cocaine.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Judge erred in refusing to admit bad character evidence relating to Defendant.
2. Whether the Judge’s comment in the written Route to Verdict document, suggesting the 500 cash was payment for Defendant’s delivery of cocaine, was improper.
3. Whether the Judge erred in responding to a jury question on the standard of proof without consulting counsel and whether the direction given was adequate.
4. Whether the cumulative effect of these matters rendered the Appellant’s convictions unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Judge wrongly excluded bad character evidence concerning Defendant’s prior alleged involvement in transferring substantial sums of criminal property to others, which would support the Appellant’s claim that the large sum of money found in the van was already in Defendant’s possession.
• The bad character evidence was relevant, had substantial probative value under section 100(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and its exclusion deprived the jury of important context.
• The Judge’s comment in the Route to Verdict that the 500 was payment for Defendant’s delivery was a new case point not put to the Appellant, undermining the defence and denying the Appellant an opportunity to respond.
• The Judge erred in answering the jury’s question on the standard of proof without consulting counsel and failed to adequately explain that reasonable doubt requires acquittal.
• Individually and cumulatively, these errors rendered the convictions unsafe.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Judge correctly excluded the bad character evidence as it was neither important explanatory evidence nor of substantial probative value, given the jury’s knowledge that Defendant had pleaded guilty and was the police focus.
• The prior alleged transactions involving Defendant were factually different, uncharged, and would have invited speculation and satellite litigation without assisting the jury.
• The comment in the Route to Verdict was consistent with the prosecution case that the Appellant handed over the full sum of cash and did not affect the jury’s deliberations.
• The Judge’s response to the jury question on standard of proof was accurate and adequate when considered alongside the summing-up; no specific form of words is required.
• The Appellant’s convictions are safe and should be upheld.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the admissibility of the bad character evidence under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It concluded the evidence was not important explanatory evidence as the case could be properly understood without it. The court then considered whether the evidence had substantial probative value in relation to a matter in issue of substantial importance, namely whether the Appellant or Defendant brought the large sum of money into the van.

The court acknowledged that the bad character evidence might lend some support to the defence case but was entitled to find it was not of substantive probative value given that the jury already knew Defendant had pleaded guilty and was the police focus. The evidence about prior alleged transactions was sparse, disputed, and factually distinct, lacking direct evidence of Defendant’s involvement or drug-related activity. Admission would have risked distracting the jury with separate allegations and satellite litigation.

Moreover, the court found that even if admitted, the evidence would not undermine the strong inference from the circumstances at the time of arrest that the Appellant brought the money into the van. The sealed "Aroma" bags containing the cash and envelope were brought in by the Appellant, and Defendant had no opportunity to place or seal them.

Regarding the Judge’s comment in the Route to Verdict suggesting the 500 was payment for Defendant’s delivery, the court held that although the comment was not expressly put to the Appellant, it was an available position consistent with the prosecution case and did not render the conviction unsafe. The jury had the opportunity to consider the evidence and make their determination.

On the jury’s question about the standard of proof, the court determined the Judge should have consulted counsel before answering but that the answer given was substantively correct and adequate. The Judge avoided a mathematical approach and instructed the jury to apply the ordinary meaning of "sure," consistent with established authorities and the Crown Court Compendium.

Overall, the court found no error in the Judge’s rulings that individually or cumulatively rendered the convictions unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the Appellant’s convictions and sentence. The court reaffirmed the proper application of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 concerning bad character evidence of non-defendants, the approach to jury directions on standard of proof, and the management of jury communications during deliberations. No new precedent was established; rather, the court applied existing principles to the facts before it, emphasizing careful judicial discretion in evidential rulings and jury management to ensure trial fairness and conviction safety.