Unlike the United States, the Isle of Man followed England in allowing relevant previous convictions to be admitted into evidence. The protection for defendants is that they can’t be admitted if they would unduly compromise the fairness of the proceedings. Given their admissibility, it is perhaps understandable that judges sometimes take an abrupt line with defendants seeking to argue that their convictions are wrong. In the case of Norman v Rex [2025] EWCA Crim 966 the defendant did just that. The defendant said it, his barrister relied on him saying it. The judge made no reference to the protestation of innocence of the earlier crime. In contrast, he effectively directed that the previous convictions were a given.
That was unlawful, the defendant is allowed to challenge the convictions correctness through evidence of any form. Although not the strongest form of evidence, the defendant is entitled to simply give evidence that the conviction was untrue. There will be a suitable direction.
The appeal was allowed on the facts. Unlike many other cases, the convictions related to the same victim and for the same type of offence. The direction had a profoundly unfair impact, the jury would have assumed that the victim’s account was true, the defendant’s fault, effecting his credibility on all counts.
The judgment shows the importance of attempting to understand the complex aspects of a trial before it commences.