Here are the key principles from R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 regarding the

application of the bad character provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003:

- The purpose of the provisions is to assist in the evidence-based conviction of the guilty,
without putting those who are not guilty at risk of conviction by prejudice. Prosecution
applications should be based on the particular circumstances of each case, not made routinely
just because the defendant has previous convictions. (Para 4)

- Section 101(1) provides 7 gateways for admitting bad character evidence. The most
commonly relied upon are: (d) where relevant to an important matter in issue between the
prosecution and defense; (f) to correct a false impression given by the defendant; and (g)
where the defendant has attacked the character of the victim. (Para 5)

- For the gateway of propensity to commit offences (s101(1)(d)), the court should consider:
1) Do the previous convictions establish a propensity? 2) Does the propensity make guilt
more likely? 3) Would admitting the evidence be unjust or affect the fairness of proceedings?
(Paras 6-7)

- The number, circumstances, and gravity of previous offences are relevant factors when
assessing propensity and admissibility. Similarity to the current offence is relevant but not
required. (Paras 9-12) There is no minimum number of events necessary to demonstrate such
a propensity. The fewer the number of convictions the weaker is likely to be the evidence of
propensity. A single previous conviction for an offence of the same description or category
will often not show propensity. But it may do so where, for example, it shows a tendency to
unusual behaviour or where its circumstances demonstrate probative force in relation to the
offence charged (compare DPP v P [1991] 2 AC 447 at 460E to 461A). Child sexual abuse or
fire setting are comparatively clear examples of such unusual behaviour but we attempt no
exhaustive list. Circumstances demonstrating probative force are not confined to those
sharing striking similarity. So, a single conviction for shoplifting, will not, without more, be
admissible to show propensity to steal. But if the modus operandi has significant features
shared by the offence charged it may show propensity.
- Propensity to be untruthful is not the same as propensity to dishonesty. It relates to the
defendant's account of events or lies told when committing the offence. (Para 13)

- The prosecution must specify the gateway relied on and details of the previous convictions
in the notice to admit bad character evidence. The defence should justify any request for
further details of previous convictions. (Para 17)

- If admitted, the jury should be warned against placing undue weight on previous
convictions and directed that propensity alone does not mean the defendant committed the
current offence. (Para 18)

- The trial judge's ruling on admissibility will only be overturned if plainly wrong or if
discretion was exercised unreasonably. (Para 15)

- A guilty plea following a ruling admitting bad character evidence is unlikely to found a
successful appeal against conviction. (Paras 16, 29)