Richard James Spottiswood [2019] EWCA Crim 949

The appellant was convicted of murder where it was agreed that death had been caused as a result of the victim being held in a headlock by the appellant. The ground for appeal was that the judge had erred in admitting a conviction for escape as bad character evidence. The circumstances of that conviction being that the appellant had been taken to hospital from prison where he had received an injury to his hand. At the hospital he put a prison officer in a headlock, lifting him off his feet and holding a knife to his neck demanding that the handcuffs be released.

In his defence statement the appellant said that he held the victim in a headlock as he struggled violently, to prevent him having access to a bag he believed contained firearms. Initially he had said in interview that he had not strangled him round the neck, he said “I don’t want to get hypothetical about what I’m capable of doing and what I’m not capable of doing, I don’t see myself ever doing that so as I’m aware. I did not do that to Darren.”

The judge determined that the previous conviction was relevant because it demonstrated previous offensive use of a headlock directly relevant to the issue of whether he had acted spontaneously in self-defence.

Held: the judge was correct to leave the evidence to the jury on the factual basis that it was open to them to conclude that the appellant had an awareness of both the effectiveness and potential dangers of using a headlock.

The submission that the evidence would have inflamed the emotions of the jury, thus preventing a fair trial, was rejected. The summing-up gave appropriate directions limiting the potential relevance and the jury were told it could at most provide only some support for the prosecution case. A further argument in respect of the judge’s directions in relation to lies and the failure to mention facts in interview was also rejected and the appeal dismissed.