R v Robert James Barnett
[2024] EWCA Crim 581
R v Jason Grundell
13 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 364
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape. The court had to decide if evidence of a fight he had with the victim 14 hours later could be used in the trial. Even though the judge got some of the legal reasons wrong, the evidence was allowed because it showed how the man treated the victim, which was important for understanding the rape case. The man’s conviction was upheld.
Key Facts
- •Appellant convicted of two counts of rape against C.
- •Appeal concerns admissibility of evidence of a domestic incident on 4 February 2020, approximately 14 hours after the second alleged rape.
- •Appellant and C had a consensual relationship that became controlling after a car accident.
- •The 4 February incident involved an argument, alleged assault, and the appellant shouting at C in the street.
- •Appellant did not give evidence, but denied the rape allegations in interview.
- •The admissibility of the 4 February incident evidence was argued under sections 98 and 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Legal Principles
Section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines 'bad character' evidence and excludes evidence that 'has to do with the alleged facts of the offence'.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 98
Section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out gateways for admitting bad character evidence, including 'important explanatory evidence' (section 101(1)(c)) and evidence relevant to an important matter in issue (section 101(1)(d)).
Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 101
Section 102 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines 'important explanatory evidence' as evidence necessary for the court or jury to understand other evidence in the case.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 102
Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows the court to exclude evidence if its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Section 78
A narrower interpretation of 'has to do with the facts of the offence' in section 98(a) is preferred to maintain the statutory purpose.
R v Mullings [2010] EWCA Crim 2820
'Important explanatory evidence' (section 101(1)(c)) is not a substitute for evidence of propensity (section 101(1)(d)) and must be genuinely necessary for understanding other evidence.
R v D, R v P, R v U [2011] EWCA Crim 1474; R v L [2012] EWCA Crim 316
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.
While the judge erred in admitting the 4 February evidence under section 98(a) and 101(1)(c), it was admissible under section 101(1)(d) as relevant to the nature of the relationship and the appellant's state of mind at the time of the second rape. The judge's direction to the jury was adequate.