R v Mitchell - (19 Oct 2016)

Existence of propensity must be proved to the criminal standard

Criminal

Respondent, Ms Mitchell was convicted of murder of her former partner Anthony Robin. At trial, she did not dispute that she had stabbed Mr Robin, but said she had acted in self-defence. She also claimed that she had been provoked and that she did not have intention to kill him or cause him really serious harm. Court of Appeal allowed her appeal, quashed conviction and ordered a re-trial. At re-trial Ms Mitchell pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was acquitted of murder. Prosecution appealed to Supreme Court against quashing of murder conviction.

There is a distinction between, on one hand, proof of a propensity and, on other, the individual underlying facts said to establish that a propensity exists. In a case in which several incidents are relied on by prosecution to show a propensity on part of Defendant, it is not necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that each incident happened in precisely the way that it is alleged to have occurred. Nor must the facts of each individual incident be considered by jury in isolation from each other. Proper issue for the jury in a case such as this is whether they are sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the propensity has been proved. The jury is entitled to – and should – consider the evidence about propensity in the round. Existence of propensity must be proved to the criminal standard.

Proper question to be posed is whether jury is satisfied that a propensity has been established. That assessment depends on an overall consideration of the evidence available, not upon a segregated examination of each item of evidence in order to decide whether it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Propensity is, at most, an incidental issue. It should be made clear to jury that, most important evidence is that which bears directly on the guilt or innocence of the accused person. Propensity cannot alone establish guilt and it must not be regarded as a satisfactory substitute for direct evidence of accused involvement in the crime charged. It is clear in present case, however, that trial judge failed to give adequate directions as to how the question of propensity should be approached by the jury. On that account, conviction was unsafe and it was properly quashed.

Tags : MURDER ACQUITTAL QUASHING