R v Adenusi
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE HOOPER |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWCA Crim 1059 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No: 2005/4110/D4 |
| Date | 26 April 2006 |
Lord Justice Hooper
Mr Justice Leveson
Mr Justice Beatson
No: 2005/4110/D4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand London, WC2
MR M CHAMBERS appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT
MR A ESPLEY appeared on behalf of the CROWN
On 1st July 2005 in the Crown Court at Canterbury before Miss Recorder Jones and a jury, the appellant was convicted of using a false instrument with intent (count 1) and of attempting to obtain a money transfer by deception (count 2).
On 23rd April 2004 the appellant entered the Canterbury branch of the Halifax Bank and sought a loan. He did so partly in reliance on two forged documents, purportedly a driving licence and a gas bill. Mistrusting the "licence", staff called the police but the man had gone by the time they had arrived.
The documents were examined for fingerprints and the appellant's prints were found both on the gas bill and the account number paper. Furthermore, a member of the staff of the Halifax Bank in Canterbury identified the appellant as the man who had come into the branch seeking the loan.
On 28th April 2004, in other words five days later, the appellant attempted to open an account in a false name at a London branch of the Halifax Bank. On that occasion he also used a driving licence and a gas bill, albeit in a different name.
On 27th October 2004, and before his trial for the Canterbury offences, he pleaded guilty to two offences of using a false instrument.
His defence at the trial for the Canterbury offences was that he was in no way involved, albeit he accepted that the documents produced by the man in the Canterbury branch were in fact forgeries.
Unsurprisingly the prosecution at the trial for the Canterbury offences sought and was given permission to introduce the offences on 28th April. The prosecution relied on section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and also on section 103(1)(a). By virtue of section 103(1)(a) the matters in issue between the defendant and the prosecution included "the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged…"
The Recorder gave a careful ruling allowing the prosecution's application. The Recorder said this as part of that ruling:
"I find that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v Ken Foster
...834, [1975] 2 W.L.R. 56, [1975] 1 All E.R. 70, (1974) 60 Cr. App. R. 80. 15 Myers v R [2015] UKPC 40, [2016] 1 Cr. App. R. 11. 16 R v Adenusi [2006] EWCA Crim 1059, (2007) 171 JP 17 J R Spencer, Evidence of Bad Character (3 rd edn, Hart Publishing 2016) ¶ 4.101. [2010] EWCA Crim 115......
-
R v Corrigan (Patrick)
... ... First, whether the events which occurred on 9 November 2012 after the events on 2 July 2012 which was the matter of trial, could be admitted under Article 6(1)(d). This point arose in relation to equivalent legislation in England and Wales in the case of R v Adenusi [2006] EWCA 1059 and the decision and reasoning in that case was affirmed in R v Norris [2013] EWCA Crim 712. In R v Adenusi Lord Justice Hooper giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal stated at paragraph 13: “Does it then matter for the purposes of (Article 6 and 8) that the offences took ... ...
-
Chandler v The State
...No issue is taken as to the judge's decision to admit it as relevant to propensity in accordance with the guidance given by the Court in R v Adenusi [2006] EWCA Crim 1059; [2006] Crim LR 929. But there is a live issue as to the adequacy of the judge's direction on this aspect. It is conve......
-
The State v Rambaran
...be proved by the prosecution relying on incidents which have occurred since the incident which is currently the subject of a trial - see R v. Adenusi [2006] E.W.C.A. Crim. 1059 at paragraph 13. 46 It is important to for the trial judge to apply the gateways carefully and not in an overboard......
-
Single-Act Propensity
...convictions,occasionally convictions subsequent to the offence charged may be admissible toprove a relevant propensity: Rv Adenusi [2006] EWCA Crim 1059, (2007) 171 JP169.4 See Criminal Justice Act 2003, s. 103(2) and (4).5 [2005] EWCA Crim 824, [2005] 1 WLR 3169.6 Section 101(4) adds that ......
-
Misconduct That ‘Has to Do with the Alleged Facts of the Offence with Which the Defendant is Charged’ … More or Less
...to the offence chargeddid not automatically mean that it would have been inadmissible as evidence of M’spropensity: see R v Adenusi [2006] EWCA Crim 1059, (2006) 171 JP 169.62 Naturally, the courts have recognised this ‘sea change’ in the bad character rules: Rv Chopra [2006] EWCA Crim 2133......