Court of Appeal Affirms Convictions in R v Damien Dunstuan: Highlighting Role of Bad Character Evidence and Judicial Discretion

Introduction

The case of R v Damien Dunstuan, as heard in the EWCA Criminal 2023, concerns an appeal against convictions for aggravated burglary and unlawful wounding. This article analyses the legal principles applied in the judgment by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, emphasizing the admissibility of bad character evidence, as governed by sections 101 and 105 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the exercise of judicial discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Key Facts

In early hours of 17 February 2021, a group of men carried out an aggravated burglary in Dagenham. They mistakenly believed they would find “weed and money” at the premises. CCTV footage and circumstantial evidence suggested the appellant, along with others, was involved in the offence. The crux of the trial revolved around whether the defendants could be correctly identified as participants in the crime.

During the trial, Damien Dunstuan took the stand and, during examination, portrayed himself as a family man who wouldn’t condone violence or use weapons in criminal activity. The prosecution argued that this created a false impression of his character and sought to introduce evidence of his previous convictions to correct this impression under section 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Legal Principles

Section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 – Admissibility of Bad Character Evidence

The judgment extensively discusses the application of bad character evidence, focusing on section 101(1)(f) which allows for the admissibility of such evidence “to correct a false impression given by the defendant.” Section 105 further elaborates that a false impression is created by an express or implied assertion that is misleading about the character of the defendant. This evidence is admissible if it is necessary to correct that impression and does not exceed those bounds.

The Court concluded that the appellant had given a false impression of being non-violent and averse to criminal weapon use, which was corrected by introducing his prior convictions for related violent behaviour.

Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – Exclusion of Evidence on Fairness Grounds

The judgment also deals with the use of discretion under section 78, which allows the court to exclude evidence if it would adversely affect the fairness of proceedings. The balance of fairness was considered in relation to both the defence and the prosecution. The Court found no misapplication of judicial discretion in admitting the prior convictions, even though they dated back to 2013.

Outcomes

The Court of Appeal upheld the original decision, rejecting the appeal and maintaining the convictions for aggravated burglary and unlawful wounding. The evidence of the appellant’s prior convictions was found to be lawfully admitted, correctly serving to counteract the false impression he had conveyed.

Conclusion

The case of R v Damien Dunstuan confirms that the presentation of a defendant’s character can play a significant role in proceedings, especially when a false impression is asserted. This judgment underscores that when past convictions are proven to be necessary to rectify a misleading portrayal, their admission into evidence can be vital for the jury’s understanding. The application of sections 101 and 105 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 can significantly influence trial outcomes. In this instance, the court’s decision to admit the prior convictions was deemed appropriate, and the overall prosecution’s case against the appellant was upheld as strong and circumstantially supported. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the convictions affirmed.