[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Richter-John, R. v [2017] EWCA Crim 374 (22 February 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2017/374.html Cite as: [2017] EWCA Crim 374

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		C ase No: 201601980 C4 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		22 February 2017

1. MR JUSTICE HOLROYDE: This matter comes before the court on a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction following a refusal by the single judge.
2. We are grateful to Mr Farrell QC, who was instructed in the case after the single judge had given his decision, for his written submissions and his oral submissions to the court this morning.
3. The grounds of appeal focus on the decision of the trial judge to admit in evidence two matters. First, the discovery in a warehouse in Swansea of items associated with the processing or trafficking of controlled drugs, on which were found the fingerprints of this Applicant. Secondly, evidence of the conviction of the Applicant many years ago for an offence of being concerned in the importation of cannabis. The cannabis imported on that occasion came from South Africa by air, as did the cannabis which was the subject of this trial. The quantity of the earlier matter was, however, very much less than the quantity involved in the present case.
4. Mr Farrell submits that the basis on which the first of those two categories of evidence might be admitted was wrongly identified at trial. Whether it was because of the way the matter was placed before the judge, Mr Farrell does not profess to know, but he submits that in the event, there was no proper focus, as there should have been, on the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, in particular sections 101(1)(d) and 101(3).
5. We note that the prosecution's written notice of application to adduce bad character evidence appears to have been focused on the second category of evidence and mentioned the first only tangentially. We note also that the learned judge seems to have been considering the admissibility of the first category evidence more in the context of a defence application to exclude than in the context of a prosecution application to admit.
6. Mr Farrell goes on to submit that absent the two categories of contentious evidence, the remaining prosecution evidence against this Applicant was very weak. Thus, he submits, particular care was required on the part of the learned judge to identify the precise basis on which evidence of bad character might be admissible so as to be able to make a proper assessment of whether its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.
7. We are persuaded that these grounds are arguable and we therefore allow the application and grant leave to appeal.
8. LORD JUSTICE SIMON: Thank you very much.
9. MR FARRELL: Thank you very much, my Lords.
10. LORD JUSTICE SIMON: I think we probably need to direct a transcript of the argument leading up to the ruling on 26 January 2016.
11. MR FARRELL: Could I just check? (Pause)
12. I do not think we do have that. Certainly if we do not have it, we certainly need it.
13. LORD JUSTICE SIMON: We do need it. How long will it take to get that, six weeks?
14. MR FARRELL: Six weeks. Yes, I am sure.
15. LORD JUSTICE SIMON: Then you need an extension of time. I think it is implicit that we grant that.
16. MR FARRELL: Thank you very much indeed.
17. LORD JUSTICE SIMON: We will direct there should be a Respondent's skeleton. We have a respondent's notice, but I think there should be a Respondent's skeleton dealing with the particular points that you have raised and addressed by my Lord's judgment.
18. MR FARRELL: Yes. I will make sure that I send a copy of my skeleton argument to prosecuting counsel, so I will e-mail it to him. (Pause)
19. LORD JUSTICE SIMON: If you could send your skeleton in the next week, then we will allow a further three weeks for the prosecution respondent's notice.
20. MR FARRELL: Sorry. So I am to send my current skeleton to the prosecution?
21. LORD JUSTICE SIMON: Yes.
22. MR FARRELL: Well, I will do that today --
23. LORD JUSTICE SIMON: Yes, so be it.
24. MR FARRELL: -- when I get back to chambers. Thank you very much indeed.
25. LORD JUSTICE SIMON: Very good. Anything else?
26. MR FARRELL: No thank you.
27. LORD JUSTICE SIMON: Thank you for your submissions.
28. MR FARRELL: Thank you very much, my Lords.