Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Published July 2, 2007
Regina v Tirnaveanu
Before Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Penry-Davey and Mr Justice Wyn Williams
Judgment May 24, 2007

Evidence of misconduct by a defendant was admissible at trial if it had some nexus with the offences charged.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held when, inter alia, dismissing appeals by Cornel Tirnaveanu against convictions at Canterbury Crown Court (Judge Van der Bijl and a jury) on December 21 and 22, 2005, on four counts of forgery, five counts of obtaining property by deception, three counts of facilitating the obtaining of leave to remain in the United Kingdom, and three counts of attempting to obtain property by deception.

The defendant was accused of posing as a solicitor to obtain money dishonestly from illegal entrants who wanted to remain in the UK, and providing them with forged entry documents.

He denied the offences, contending that another person posing as him was responsible.

The judge allowed the Crown’s application to adduce evidence of the defendant’s dealings with other illegal immigrants who were not the subjects of the offences charged.

Mr Nick Wrack and Mr Dean George, both assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the defendant; Mr Anthony Prosser and Mr Allister Walker for the Crown.

LORD JUSTICE THOMAS, giving the judgment of the court, said that the evidence sought to be adduced was highly relevant to proving that it was the defendant who had committed the offences and not someone posing as him.

Section 98(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 defined bad character as evidence of or a disposition towards misconduct, other than evidence which had to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant was charged.

The evidence sought to be adduced by the Crown was not “to do” with the facts of the alleged offence, as the exclusion under section 98(a) had to relate to evidence where there was some nexus in time between the offence charged and the evidence of misconduct, and no such nexus existed.

The application of that provision was a fact-specific exercise involving the interpretation of ordinary words. The evidence was admissible as bad character under section 101(1)(d) of the 2003 Act as it was relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution, namely whether it was the defendant who committed the offence and not some other person.

Despite the difference in wording, there was no difference in the powers of the court under section 101(3) of the 2003 Act and section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 not to admit such evidence where the court was satisfied that it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to be admitted.

The evidence was powerful, important, did not affect the fairness of the proceedings and the judge was therefore right to admit it.

Solicitors: Crown Prosecution Service, Canterbury.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Linklaters hits record on 15% revenue rise
• Guy Hands sues Baker Tilly over tax advice
• Vodafone defeats Customs in tax fight