Key Facts
- •Damien Dunstuan appealed convictions for aggravated burglary and unlawful wounding.
- •The offences involved a group breaking into a house, one occupier being injured with a crowbar.
- •Dunstuan's involvement was circumstantial: alleged convoy travel, reconnaissance, phone calls.
- •The prosecution initially failed to admit Dunstuan's 2013 convictions for wounding with intent and possessing a bladed article.
- •Dunstuan testified, denying involvement and stating he had no crowbar in his car.
- •The prosecution then successfully applied to admit the 2013 convictions under section 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, arguing Dunstuan gave a false impression.
- •The judge admitted the evidence, finding Dunstuan created a false impression of being a non-violent family man.
- •The appeal challenged the admissibility of the 2013 convictions.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of bad character evidence under section 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Power to exclude evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 if admission would adversely affect fairness.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
A defendant gives a false impression if responsible for an assertion apt to give a false impression; evidence correcting this must have probative value and go no further than necessary.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 105
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court upheld the judge's decision to admit the 2013 convictions. They found Dunstuan deliberately created a false impression by his testimony, and the 2013 convictions had probative value in contradicting that impression. The judge's exercise of discretion in not excluding the evidence was also deemed appropriate. The circumstantial evidence against Dunstuan was also considered strong.