R v Grant Harding
[2023] EWCA Crim 937
R v Sehawash Sedeqe
26 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 611
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of GBH. He argued the judge should have told the jury he was a good person. The judge said no because of his past drug offences. The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge; the evidence against him was strong (CCTV), and the jury already knew about his lack of violent offences. The appeal failed.
Key Facts
- •The appellant was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
- •The conviction followed a trial at Woolwich Crown Court.
- •The appellant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended for six months.
- •The appellant appealed against conviction, arguing the judge wrongly refused to give a good character direction.
- •The prosecution's case relied on the complainant's (now deceased) statement and CCTV evidence.
- •The defence argued self-defence.
- •The appellant had previous convictions for drug-related offences.
- •The judge refused to give a good character direction, stating the appellant's convictions were not 'old, minor and irrelevant to the charge'.
Legal Principles
Only defendants with good character, or deemed to be of effective good character, are entitled to a good character direction.
R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631
Effective good character extends to defendants whose previous convictions are old, minor, and have no relevance to the charge.
R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631, para [79]
Whether to treat someone as being of effective good character is a matter of judgment for the trial judge.
R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631, para [79]
A defendant with previous convictions has no entitlement to a good character direction; it's a matter for the judge's discretion.
R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631, para [81], [82]
The jury should be trusted to bear the evidence in mind and assess its weight.
R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631, para [91]
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's refusal to give a good character direction was within his discretion. The appellant's previous convictions were not old, minor, or irrelevant to the charge. The jury was aware of the lack of violence-related convictions, and the evidence against the appellant was strong (CCTV).