202401911 B3 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1317

Fecha: 16-Oct-2025

The ground of appeal

The ground of appeal

26.

At the conclusion of the appellant’s examination in chief,D2 applied to adduce bad character evidence in relation to the appellant under s101(1)(e) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“CJA 2003”) as having substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant. The evidence consisted of four allegations regarding the appellant’s behaviour in school in CRIS reports and an Instagram exchange with D3.

27.

D2 argued that the appellant had mounted a direct attack on him in relation to an important matter in issue, namely who carried a knife and stabbed the deceased. The evidence had substantial probative value as it supported the contention that the appellant was willing to associate himself with, carry knives and supply them to others. The appellant opposed the application.

28.

The judge ruled that two allegations in CRIS reports along with the redacted Instagram exchange were admissible under s101(1)(e) of the CJA 2003 as follows:

(i)

the appellant taking an eight-inch bread knife into school on 12 October 2020 and his explanation that he had the knife with him for self-protection because after school he was planning to meet a former friend with whom he had had a disagreement;

(ii)

the appellant telling a teacher on a school bus on 17 November 2020 that he would go to another pupil’s home address that evening and stab him in the face;

(iii)

the appellant offering to help another person in buying a knife in the following Instagram messages sent just before 2 am on 13 November 2023 (being some 3 months after the killing of C1):

“X: Yo I need a knife
X: You have (emoji of a knife)
AL-SHUMARI: We go tomorrow and buy one”

29.

The single ground of appeal is that the judge erred in allowing the D2’s bad character application against the appellant under s.101(1)(e) of the CJA 2003; this had such an adverse effect on the trial as to render the convictions in respect of the appellant unsafe.