A man was convicted of tax fraud. His lawyer argued that evidence of a past, similar crime shouldn't have been used. The court decided the past crime was relevant to whether the man was guilty, so the conviction was upheld.
Key Facts
- •Alexander Thomas Windsor appealed his conviction for two counts of conspiracy to cheat HMRC.
- •The appeal concerned the admissibility of bad character evidence – a previous conviction from 1997 for excise duty evasion.
- •The 1997 conviction involved similar defendants and related to alcohol duty diversion.
- •The trial judge admitted the bad character evidence, finding it relevant to whether Windsor was an innocent dupe or a participant.
- •Windsor's defense was that he was duped by Avtar and Ken Hare.
- •The fraud involved over 1,000 consignments of smuggled alcohol, resulting in approximately £28 million in evaded duties and VAT.
- •The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of bad character evidence.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, sections 101 and 103
Three-part test for admissibility of propensity evidence (from R v Hanson): Does the conviction establish a propensity? Does the propensity make the defendant more likely guilty? Is it unjust or unfair to rely on the conviction?
R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal refused the renewed application for leave to appeal.
The trial judge was entitled to admit the previous conviction. The previous conviction was relevant to whether Windsor was a participant or a dupe, and made it more likely he was guilty given his defense. The age of the conviction and differences in roles did not undermine the judge's decision.