essay on bad character evidence

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Court — Bad Character Evidence: Then and Now

Bad Character Evidence: then and Now

Categories: Court Criminal Procedure Law of Life

About this sample

Words: 2581 |

13 min read

Published: Oct 22, 2018

Words: 2581 | Pages: 6 | 13 min read

The old law, defendant witnesses, the new law, a non-defendant witnesses.

Where the defense and the prosecution agree to the evidence being admissible
The evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it
The evidence has important explanatory value
It has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant
It is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution
If the defendant has made an attack against another person's character
If it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

6 pages / 2615 words

4 pages / 1750 words

2 pages / 890 words

1 pages / 820 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Court

On 27th September 2018 I attended the provincial court of British Columbia inCourtenay. In the court, food, drinks and cell phones on are not allowed. I reached in the court at before 2:00pm. Before entering the court, I met [...]

TENNESSEE v. GARNER, (1985) A Tennessee statute provides that if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary [...]

The subjects of use of force and search-and-seizures are controversial topics in the media regarding the Criminal Justice field today. Many instances are sensationalized in the media. However, there are instances of note which [...]

In the said case, writ petition and appeals were filed challenging the constitutional validity of twin conditions for granting bail u/s Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Section 45(1) imposes ‘two [...]

Throughout history, we have seen various forms of injustice targeted at citizens who don’t know their rights and government officials who exploit the system. Due to this fact, there has now been a law in place that prevents the [...]

The play Agamemnon involves a variety of characters who introduce and contribute towards some of the major themes of the play, such as justice and revenge. While the play is dominated by Clytaemnestra and the Chorus, we are [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Search Menu
Browse content in Arts and Humanities
Browse content in Archaeology
Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
Archaeology by Region
Archaeology of Religion
Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
Biblical Archaeology
Contemporary and Public Archaeology
Environmental Archaeology
Historical Archaeology
History and Theory of Archaeology
Industrial Archaeology
Landscape Archaeology
Mortuary Archaeology
Prehistoric Archaeology
Underwater Archaeology
Urban Archaeology
Zooarchaeology
Browse content in Architecture
Architectural Structure and Design
History of Architecture
Residential and Domestic Buildings
Theory of Architecture
Browse content in Art
Art Subjects and Themes
History of Art
Industrial and Commercial Art
Theory of Art
Biographical Studies
Byzantine Studies
Browse content in Classical Studies
Classical History
Classical Philosophy
Classical Mythology
Classical Literature
Classical Reception
Classical Art and Architecture
Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
Greek and Roman Papyrology
Greek and Roman Epigraphy
Greek and Roman Law
Greek and Roman Archaeology
Late Antiquity
Religion in the Ancient World
Digital Humanities
Browse content in History
Colonialism and Imperialism
Diplomatic History
Environmental History
Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
Historical Geography
History by Period
History of Emotions
History of Agriculture
History of Education
History of Gender and Sexuality
Industrial History
Intellectual History
International History
Labour History
Legal and Constitutional History
Local and Family History
Maritime History
Military History
National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
Oral History
Political History
Public History
Regional and National History
Revolutions and Rebellions
Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
Social and Cultural History
Theory, Methods, and Historiography
Urban History
World History
Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
Language Learning (Specific Skills)
Language Teaching Theory and Methods
Browse content in Linguistics
Applied Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics
Computational Linguistics
Forensic Linguistics
Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
History of English
Language Evolution
Language Reference
Language Acquisition
Language Variation
Language Families
Lexicography
Linguistic Anthropology
Linguistic Theories
Linguistic Typology
Phonetics and Phonology
Psycholinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Translation and Interpretation
Writing Systems
Browse content in Literature
Bibliography
Children's Literature Studies
Literary Studies (Romanticism)
Literary Studies (American)
Literary Studies (Asian)
Literary Studies (European)
Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
Literary Studies (Modernism)
Literary Studies - World
Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
Literary Studies (19th Century)
Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
Literary Studies (African American Literature)
Literary Studies (British and Irish)
Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
Literary Studies (History of the Book)
Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
Literary Studies (War Literature)
Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
Mythology and Folklore
Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
Browse content in Media Studies
Browse content in Music
Applied Music
Dance and Music
Ethics in Music
Ethnomusicology
Gender and Sexuality in Music
Medicine and Music
Music Cultures
Music and Media
Music and Religion
Music and Culture
Music Education and Pedagogy
Music Theory and Analysis
Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
Musicology and Music History
Performance Practice and Studies
Race and Ethnicity in Music
Sound Studies
Browse content in Performing Arts
Browse content in Philosophy
Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Epistemology
Feminist Philosophy
History of Western Philosophy
Metaphysics
Moral Philosophy
Non-Western Philosophy
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Perception
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Action
Philosophy of Law
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
Practical Ethics
Social and Political Philosophy
Browse content in Religion
Biblical Studies
Christianity
East Asian Religions
History of Religion
Judaism and Jewish Studies
Qumran Studies
Religion and Education
Religion and Health
Religion and Politics
Religion and Science
Religion and Law
Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
Religious Studies
Browse content in Society and Culture
Cookery, Food, and Drink
Cultural Studies
Customs and Traditions
Ethical Issues and Debates
Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
Sports and Outdoor Recreation
Technology and Society
Travel and Holiday
Visual Culture
Browse content in Law
Arbitration
Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
Commercial Law
Company Law
Browse content in Comparative Law
Systems of Law
Competition Law
Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
Government Powers
Judicial Review
Local Government Law
Military and Defence Law
Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
Construction Law
Contract Law
Browse content in Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Criminal Evidence Law
Sentencing and Punishment
Employment and Labour Law
Environment and Energy Law
Browse content in Financial Law
Banking Law
Insolvency Law
History of Law
Human Rights and Immigration
Intellectual Property Law
Browse content in International Law
Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
Public International Law
IT and Communications Law
Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
Law and Politics
Law and Society
Browse content in Legal System and Practice
Courts and Procedure
Legal Skills and Practice
Primary Sources of Law
Regulation of Legal Profession
Medical and Healthcare Law
Browse content in Policing
Criminal Investigation and Detection
Police and Security Services
Police Procedure and Law
Police Regional Planning
Browse content in Property Law
Personal Property Law
Study and Revision
Terrorism and National Security Law
Browse content in Trusts Law
Wills and Probate or Succession
Browse content in Medicine and Health
Browse content in Allied Health Professions
Arts Therapies
Clinical Science
Dietetics and Nutrition
Occupational Therapy
Operating Department Practice
Physiotherapy
Radiography
Speech and Language Therapy
Browse content in Anaesthetics
General Anaesthesia
Neuroanaesthesia
Clinical Neuroscience
Browse content in Clinical Medicine
Acute Medicine
Cardiovascular Medicine
Clinical Genetics
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Dermatology
Endocrinology and Diabetes
Gastroenterology
Genito-urinary Medicine
Geriatric Medicine
Infectious Diseases
Medical Toxicology
Medical Oncology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Medicine
Rehabilitation Medicine
Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
Rheumatology
Sleep Medicine
Sports and Exercise Medicine
Community Medical Services
Critical Care
Emergency Medicine
Forensic Medicine
Haematology
History of Medicine
Browse content in Medical Skills
Clinical Skills
Communication Skills
Nursing Skills
Surgical Skills
Browse content in Medical Dentistry
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Paediatric Dentistry
Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
Surgical Dentistry
Medical Ethics
Medical Statistics and Methodology
Browse content in Neurology
Clinical Neurophysiology
Neuropathology
Nursing Studies
Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Gynaecology
Occupational Medicine
Ophthalmology
Otolaryngology (ENT)
Browse content in Paediatrics
Neonatology
Browse content in Pathology
Chemical Pathology
Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
Histopathology
Medical Microbiology and Virology
Patient Education and Information
Browse content in Pharmacology
Psychopharmacology
Browse content in Popular Health
Caring for Others
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Self-help and Personal Development
Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Reproduction, Growth and Development
Primary Care
Professional Development in Medicine
Browse content in Psychiatry
Addiction Medicine
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Forensic Psychiatry
Learning Disabilities
Old Age Psychiatry
Psychotherapy
Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Public Health
Browse content in Radiology
Clinical Radiology
Interventional Radiology
Nuclear Medicine
Radiation Oncology
Reproductive Medicine
Browse content in Surgery
Cardiothoracic Surgery
Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
General Surgery
Neurosurgery
Paediatric Surgery
Peri-operative Care
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Surgical Oncology
Transplant Surgery
Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
Vascular Surgery
Browse content in Science and Mathematics
Browse content in Biological Sciences
Aquatic Biology
Biochemistry
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Developmental Biology
Ecology and Conservation
Evolutionary Biology
Genetics and Genomics
Microbiology
Molecular and Cell Biology
Natural History
Plant Sciences and Forestry
Research Methods in Life Sciences
Structural Biology
Systems Biology
Zoology and Animal Sciences
Browse content in Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
Computational Chemistry
Crystallography
Environmental Chemistry
Industrial Chemistry
Inorganic Chemistry
Materials Chemistry
Medicinal Chemistry
Mineralogy and Gems
Organic Chemistry
Physical Chemistry
Polymer Chemistry
Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
Theoretical Chemistry
Browse content in Computer Science
Artificial Intelligence
Computer Architecture and Logic Design
Game Studies
Human-Computer Interaction
Mathematical Theory of Computation
Programming Languages
Software Engineering
Systems Analysis and Design
Virtual Reality
Browse content in Computing
Business Applications
Computer Security
Computer Games
Computer Networking and Communications
Digital Lifestyle
Graphical and Digital Media Applications
Operating Systems
Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
Atmospheric Sciences
Environmental Geography
Geology and the Lithosphere
Maps and Map-making
Meteorology and Climatology
Oceanography and Hydrology
Palaeontology
Physical Geography and Topography
Regional Geography
Soil Science
Urban Geography
Browse content in Engineering and Technology
Agriculture and Farming
Biological Engineering
Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
Electronics and Communications Engineering
Energy Technology
Engineering (General)
Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
History of Engineering and Technology
Mechanical Engineering and Materials
Technology of Industrial Chemistry
Transport Technology and Trades
Browse content in Environmental Science
Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
Environmental Sustainability
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
History of Science and Technology
Browse content in Materials Science
Ceramics and Glasses
Composite Materials
Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
Nanotechnology
Browse content in Mathematics
Applied Mathematics
Biomathematics and Statistics
History of Mathematics
Mathematical Education
Mathematical Finance
Mathematical Analysis
Numerical and Computational Mathematics
Probability and Statistics
Pure Mathematics
Browse content in Neuroscience
Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
Development of the Nervous System
Disorders of the Nervous System
History of Neuroscience
Invertebrate Neurobiology
Molecular and Cellular Systems
Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
Neuroscientific Techniques
Sensory and Motor Systems
Browse content in Physics
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
Biological and Medical Physics
Classical Mechanics
Computational Physics
Condensed Matter Physics
Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
History of Physics
Mathematical and Statistical Physics
Measurement Science
Nuclear Physics
Particles and Fields
Plasma Physics
Quantum Physics
Relativity and Gravitation
Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
Browse content in Psychology
Affective Sciences
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Neuroscience
Criminal and Forensic Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Educational Psychology
Evolutionary Psychology
Health Psychology
History and Systems in Psychology
Music Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational Psychology
Psychological Assessment and Testing
Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
Psychology Professional Development and Training
Research Methods in Psychology
Social Psychology
Browse content in Social Sciences
Browse content in Anthropology
Anthropology of Religion
Human Evolution
Medical Anthropology
Physical Anthropology
Regional Anthropology
Social and Cultural Anthropology
Theory and Practice of Anthropology
Browse content in Business and Management
Business Ethics
Business Strategy
Business History
Business and Technology
Business and Government
Business and the Environment
Comparative Management
Corporate Governance
Corporate Social Responsibility
Entrepreneurship
Health Management
Human Resource Management
Industrial and Employment Relations
Industry Studies
Information and Communication Technologies
International Business
Knowledge Management
Management and Management Techniques
Operations Management
Organizational Theory and Behaviour
Pensions and Pension Management
Public and Nonprofit Management
Strategic Management
Supply Chain Management
Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice
Criminology
Forms of Crime
International and Comparative Criminology
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Development Studies
Browse content in Economics
Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
Asian Economics
Behavioural Finance
Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
Economic History
Economic Systems
Economic Methodology
Economic Development and Growth
Financial Markets
Financial Institutions and Services
General Economics and Teaching
Health, Education, and Welfare
History of Economic Thought
International Economics
Labour and Demographic Economics
Law and Economics
Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
Microeconomics
Public Economics
Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
Welfare Economics
Browse content in Education
Adult Education and Continuous Learning
Care and Counselling of Students
Early Childhood and Elementary Education
Educational Equipment and Technology
Educational Strategies and Policy
Higher and Further Education
Organization and Management of Education
Philosophy and Theory of Education
Schools Studies
Secondary Education
Teaching of a Specific Subject
Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
Teaching Skills and Techniques
Browse content in Environment
Applied Ecology (Social Science)
Climate Change
Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
Natural Disasters (Environment)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
Browse content in Human Geography
Cultural Geography
Economic Geography
Political Geography
Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
Communication Studies
Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
Browse content in Politics
African Politics
Asian Politics
Chinese Politics
Comparative Politics
Conflict Politics
Elections and Electoral Studies
Environmental Politics
European Union
Foreign Policy
Gender and Politics
Human Rights and Politics
Indian Politics
International Relations
International Organization (Politics)
International Political Economy
Irish Politics
Latin American Politics
Middle Eastern Politics
Political Behaviour
Political Economy
Political Institutions
Political Methodology
Political Communication
Political Philosophy
Political Sociology
Political Theory
Politics and Law
Public Policy
Public Administration
Quantitative Political Methodology
Regional Political Studies
Russian Politics
Security Studies
State and Local Government
UK Politics
US Politics
Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
African Studies
Asian Studies
East Asian Studies
Japanese Studies
Latin American Studies
Middle Eastern Studies
Native American Studies
Scottish Studies
Browse content in Research and Information
Research Methods
Browse content in Social Work
Addictions and Substance Misuse
Adoption and Fostering
Care of the Elderly
Child and Adolescent Social Work
Couple and Family Social Work
Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
Emergency Services
Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
International and Global Issues in Social Work
Mental and Behavioural Health
Social Justice and Human Rights
Social Policy and Advocacy
Social Work and Crime and Justice
Social Work Macro Practice
Social Work Practice Settings
Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
Welfare and Benefit Systems
Browse content in Sociology
Childhood Studies
Community Development
Comparative and Historical Sociology
Economic Sociology
Gender and Sexuality
Gerontology and Ageing
Health, Illness, and Medicine
Marriage and the Family
Migration Studies
Occupations, Professions, and Work
Organizations
Population and Demography
Race and Ethnicity
Social Theory
Social Movements and Social Change
Social Research and Statistics
Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
Sociology of Religion
Sociology of Education
Sport and Leisure
Urban and Rural Studies
Browse content in Warfare and Defence
Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
Land Forces and Warfare
Military Administration
Military Life and Institutions
Naval Forces and Warfare
Other Warfare and Defence Issues
Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
Weapons and Equipment

< Previous chapter
Next chapter >

4 The Ethics of Character Evidence

Published: March 2015
Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter considers the moral arguments against the use of bad character evidence in a criminal trial. It begins by looking at one of the challenges faced by these moral arguments: the need to explain their own defeasibility or limited applicability. It then examines moral accounts, all of which seem to revolve around the central theme of the significance of desistance from crime. The chapter concludes that arguments which have been put forward for a ‘moralized’ exclusionary rule are unconvincing.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

Google Scholar Indexing
GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

Sign in with email/username & password
Get email alerts
Save searches
Purchase content
Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
Institutional account management
Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institutionâ€™s website and Oxford Academic.

Click Sign in through your institution.
Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institutionâ€™s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see â€˜Sign in through society siteâ€™ in the sign in pane within a journal:

Click Sign in through society site.
When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Rights and permissions
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Help and information
Comparative
Constitutional & Administrative
Criminal Justice
Criminology
Environment
Equity & Trusts
Competition
Human Rights & Immigration
Intellectual Property
International Criminal
International Environmental
Private International
Public International
IT & Communications
Jurisprudence & Philosophy of Law
Legal Practice Course
English Legal System (ELS)
Legal Skills & Practice
Medical & Healthcare
Study & Revision
Business and Government
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

The Modern Law of Evidence (14th edn)

Preface to the Fourteenth Edition
Table of Statutes
Table of Statutory Instruments
Table of Codes, Codes of Practice and Practice Directions
Table of Cases
1. Introduction
2. Preliminaries
3. The burden and standard of proof
4. Proof of facts without evidence
5. Documentary and real evidence
6. Witnesses
7. Examination-in-chief
8. Cross-examination and re-examination
9. Corroboration and care warnings
10. Visual and voice identification
11. Evidence obtained by illegal or unfair means
12. Hearsay in criminal cases
13. Hearsay admissible by statute in civil proceedings
14. Hearsay admissible at common law
15. Confessions
16. Adverse inferences from an accused’s silence or conduct
17. Evidence of character: evidence of character in civil cases
18. Evidence of character: evidence of the good character of the accused
19. Evidence of character: evidence of bad character in criminal cases
20. Experts and opinion evidence
21. Public policy
22. Privilege
23. Admissibility of previous verdicts

p. 564 19. Evidence of character: evidence of bad character in criminal cases

Adrian Keane Adrian Keane of the Inner Temple, Barrister, Emeritus Professor of Law, The City Law School, City, University of London, Former Dean of the Inns of Court School of Law
and Paul McKeown Paul McKeown of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister, Associate Professor of Law, The City Law School, City, University of London
https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780192855930.003.0019
Published in print: 14 March 2022
Published online: September 2022

This chapter begins with an introduction to the statutory framework governing the admissibility of bad character evidence. It goes on to consider the statutory definition of ‘bad character’ and to discuss the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal cases under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, namely: the admissibility of the bad character of a person other than the defendant and the requirement of leave; the admissibility of evidence of the bad character of the defendant under various statutory ‘gateways’, including the gateway by which evidence may be admitted if it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution; and safeguards including the discretion to exclude evidence of bad character and the judge’s power to stop a case where the evidence is contaminated. Procedural rules are also considered, as is the defendant’s right to challenge evidence of bad character.

English law
admissibility
bad character
probative value
untruthfulness

You do not currently have access to this chapter

Please sign in to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Law Trove. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 21 April 2024

Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility
[66.249.64.20|193.7.198.129]
193.7.198.129

Characters remaining 500 /500

Accessibility controls

Bad character evidence, introduction, the legal framework, the seven gateways, power of the court to stop the case, proving convictions and other reprehensible conduct, bad character of non-defendants.

The admissibility of bad character evidence in criminal proceedings is governed by Part 11 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Sections 98 -113), section 99 of which abolished the existing common law rules. The only qualification to the abolition of the common law rules is in section 99(2) which, for the purposes of bad character evidence, allows for proof of a person’s bad character by the calling of evidence as to his reputation.

The provisions of the 2003 Act also do not affect section 27(3) of the Theft Act 1968 which makes provision for proof of guilty knowledge on a charge of handling stolen goods by proof of previous convictions for handling or theft.

“Bad character” evidence is defined in section 98 of the Act which provides that:

“References in this Chapter to evidence of a person’s ‘bad character’ are to evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his part, other than evidence which –

Has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or
Is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence”.

“Misconduct’ is defined in section 112 of the Act as “the commission of an offence or of other reprehensible behaviour” . What is capable of constituting reprehensible behaviour will be fact specific and has been held to include;

Drinking to excess and taking illegal drugs - R v M [2014] EWCA Crim 1457
Membership of a violent gang - R v Lewis [2014] EWCA Crim 48

‘Criminal proceedings’ are defined in section 112 as ‘criminal proceedings to which the strict rules of evidence apply’ and have been held to include:

A trial or newton hearing - R v Bradley [2005] EWCA Crim 20
A preparatory hearing (section 30 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996) - R v H [2006] 1 Cr App R 4
A hearing pursuant to section 4A of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 – finding of fact hearing further to a finding of unfit to plead - R v Chal [2007] EWCA Crim 2647

Evidence falling with section 98(b) would encompass evidence relating to, for example, the telling of lies in an interview or the intimidation of witnesses (where not the subject of a separate charge).

It is of crucial importance to identify what evidence “has to do” with the alleged facts of an offence because if it does relate to the alleged facts, it will not be subject to the statutory regime of gateways and safeguards provided by the Act.

An offence which could not be proved without reference to bad character would clearly be one that would fall within section 98(a) . Examples of these would include driving whilst disqualified contrary to section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or possession of a firearm having previously been convicted of an offence of imprisonment contrary to section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 where the fact of a previous conviction constitutes an element of the actus reus .

In other cases where proof of bad character is not an essential element of the offence, the question of whether or not the evidence has to do with the facts of the offence is not always straightforward. In R v McNeill [2007] EWCA Crim 2927 it was said that

“the words of the statute ‘has to do with’ are words of prima facie broad application, albeit constituting a phrase that has to be construed in the overall context of the bad character provisions of the 2003 Act…..It would be a sufficient working model of these words if one said that they either clearly encompass evidence relating to the alleged facts of an offence which would have been admissible under the common law outside the context of bad character of propensity, even before the Act, or alternatively as embracing anything directly relevant to the offence charged, provided at any rate they were reasonably contemporaneous with and closely associated with its alleged facts ”.

The nexus envisaged by the court in McNeill was temporal (statement of a threat to kill made two days after an alleged offence of a threat to kill admissible under the terms of section 98 ). The temporal nexus was endorsed in R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239 where the misconduct sought to be adduced showed little more than propensity (possession of papers showing involvement in illegal entry of Romanian nationals of occasions other than subject to the offence charged-if admissible at all then through one of the gateways-see below). More recent authorities have suggested that a temporal requirement is but one way of establishing a nexus; thus where the evidence is relied upon to establish motive, there is no such temporal requirement (see R v Sule [2012] EWCA Crim 1130 and R v Ditta [2016] EWCA Crim 8 ). However, as to evidence of motive, see below – ‘important explanatory evidence’.

In this regard, the case of R v Lunkulu [2015] EWCA Crim 1350 offers some assistance where it was stated that

“ Section 98(a) included no necessary temporal qualification and applied to evidence of incidents whenever they occurred so long as they were to do with the alleged facts of the offence” (evidence of previous shooting and conviction for attempted murder relevant to establish an on-going gang related feud where the issue was identity).

There is a fine line between evidence said to do with the facts of the alleged offence and evidence the admissibility of which may fall to be considered through one of the gateways. Thus in R v Okokono [2014] EWCA Crim 2521 evidence of a previous conviction for possession of a knife was considered to be ‘highly relevant’ to a charge of a gang related killing applying section 98(a) but would also have been admissible under one of the statutory gateways. See also R v M [2006] EWCA Crim 193 where the complainant in a rape case was cross examined about why she had, after an alleged rape, made no complaint and had got into a car with her attacker. That line of questioning permitted evidence of her account of previous threats to shoot her and her belief that M had a gun. The court said this evidence ‘had to do with’ the facts of the alleged offence but, if not, would have been admissible under gateway (c) as ‘important explanatory evidence’.

Care should be taken when considering what evidence to adduce as part of the Crown’s case and whether an application for the admission of bad character evidence is necessary. In some cases where there is some doubt about whether evidence can be said to be to do with the alleged facts, it may be appropriate for an application to be made in any event for the evidence to be adduced either as important explanatory evidence or evidence relevant to an important matter in issue between the prosecution and the defendant.

Defendant Bad Character Evidence

The admissibility of evidence that falls outside the definition of bad character within the meaning of section 98 is governed by section 101 of the Act which provides that

“In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant’s bad character is admissible if, but only if –

all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible;
the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross examination and intended to elicit it;
it is important explanatory evidence;
it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution;
it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant;
it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant; or
the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.

Agreement of the Parties – section 101(1)(a)

This provision enables matters to be admitted by agreement. It does not empower advocates to agree evidence between them which may require judicial control, for example, third party material disclosed in respect of a non-defendant – R v DJ [2010] EWCA Crim 385 – This case emphasized the need to always inform the judge of any proposed agreement between advocates as to the admissibility of bad character evidence which will enable the court to identify both relevance and purpose of the evidence.

Where there are multiple defendants, the consent of all accused is required – Ferdinand [2014] EWCA Crim 1243 .

Evidence adduced or elicited by the defendant – section 101(1)(b)

Evidence adduced through this gateway is limited to the purpose for which it was elicited.

Important Explanatory Evidence – section 101(1)(c)

This is an important gateway for the prosecution and there is considerable overlap with evidence that ‘has to do with’ the alleged facts of the offence with which a defendant is charged. It reflects broadly the common law rule under which evidence of background was admitted without which a case would be incomplete – see R v Pettman unreported May 2 1985.

S101(1)(c) should be considered together with section 102 which provides that;

“For the purposes of section 101(1)(c) evidence is important explanatory evidence if –

without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and
its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.

The requirements of section 102 should be given proper consideration. Evidence that simply “fills out the picture” is not the same as saying that the rest of the picture is either impossible or difficult to see without it – see R v Lee (Peter Bruce) [2012] EWCA Crim 316

There may be an issue about whether evidence of motive is admissible through this gateway. Under the common law, evidence of motive was always admissible to show that it was more probable that it was the accused who had committed the offence and it was generally considered that such evidence would form part of the background and be explanatory evidence. However, the Court of Appeal in R v Sule ante held that such evidence had to do with the facts of the alleged offence and thereby fell within the scope of section 98 .

Care should be taken when considering the route to admissibility of bad character evidence not to seek admissibility through this gateway when the proper approach is gateway (d). The case of Leatham and Mallett [2017] EWCA Crim 42 is illustrative of the approach of the Court in the application of section 101(1)(c) and the relationship with section 101(1)(d) . In that case, L and M were charged with conspiracy to burgle based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The court admitted evidence of L’s previous convictions for similar offences on the basis it provided an explanation for what were otherwise completely incomprehensible explanations provided by both accused. The commentary in the Criminal Law Review [2017] Crim LR 788 illustrates the difficulties and complexity of the provision and its overlap with section 101(1)(d) – below.

Important matter in Issue between the Defendant and the Prosecution – section 101(1)(d)

The 2003 Act introduced a revolutionary change to the admissibility of bad character evidence in criminal proceedings. Whereas under the common law the premise was that evidence of bad character was inadmissible save for where the evidence was admissible as similar fact in accordance with the test in DPP v P [1991] 2 A.C. 447 and the limited instances permitted by the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, the 2003 Act presumes that all relevant evidence will be admissible, even if it is evidence of bad character, subject to the discretion of the court to exclude in cases where the prosecution seek to adduce the evidence( see below under ‘Fairness).

Thus, evidence of bad character is admissible where it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the prosecution and the defence and can be used, for example, to rebut the suggestion of coincidence (see R v Howe [2017] EWCA Crim 2400 – evidence of previous convictions for burglary probative of the identification of the accused on a charge of burglary) or to rebut a defence of innocent association (see R v Cambridge [2011] EWCA Crim 2009 – on a charge of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, evidence of a previous incident in which the accused had discarded an imitation firearm and for which he had received a formal warning was admissible to rebut the explanation proffered by the accused for his fingerprints being found on the outside and the inside of the bag in which the firearm the subject of the present charge was found) .

When seeking to admit evidence through this gateway, it is essential therefore that the issues in the case are identified and the relevance to that issue of the bad character evidence is clearly identified. For evidence to pass this gateway, it has to be relevant to an important matter in issue between the parties; this is defined in section 112 as meaning “a matter of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole”. Thus prosecutors must not lose sight of the need to focus on the important issues in the case and should never seek to adduce bad character evidence as probative of peripheral or relatively unimportant issues in the context of the case as a whole.

One of the most radical departures from the common law was to permit evidence of propensity to be used as probative of an issue in the case. Section 103(1) provides that matters in issue between the defendant and the prosecution include –

the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence;
the question whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful, except where it is not suggested that the defendant’s case is untruthful in any respect.

By subsection 2

Where subsection (1)(a) applies, a defendant’s propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged may (without prejudice to any other way of doing so) be established by evidence that he has been convicted of

an offence of the same description as the one with which he is charged, or
an offence of the same category as the one with which he is charged.

Subsection 4 provides that for the purposes of subsection (2) –

two offences are of the same description as each other if the statement of the offence in a written charge or indictment would, in each case, be in the same terms;
two offences are of the same category as each other if they belong to the same category of offences prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State.

For offences of the same category under section 103(4)(b) , please refer to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Categories of Offences) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004 No 3346) and Parts 1 and 2 of the Schedule. Part 1 lists offences under the heading “Theft Category” and contains offences under the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978. Part 2 is headed “Sexual Offences (Persons under the age of 16) Category” and lists offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and 2003 as well as under the Indecency with Children Act 1960, the Criminal Law Act 1977, the Mental Health Act 1959 and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2003.

The leading case on propensity evidence remains R v Hanson: R v Gilmour; R v P [2005] EWCA Crim 824 ; in brief, the Court of Appeal provided the following guidance;

Does the history of conviction(s) establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged?;
If so, does the propensity make it more likely that the defendant committed the crime?;
There was no minimum number of events necessary to demonstrate such a propensity, though the fewer the number of convictions, the weaker was likely to be the evidence of propensity; a single previous conviction for an offence of the same description or category would often not show propensity but it might do so where, for example, it showed a tendency to unusual behaviour (see for example, R v Balazs [2014] EWCA Crim 947-single offence of rape admitted where it was of a strikingly similar nature of R v Bennabbou [2012] EWCA Crim 1256 - old conviction and dissimilar circumstances);
The strength of the prosecution case must be considered; if there was no, or little, other evidence against a defendant it was unlikely to be just to admit his previous convictions whatever they were (see R v Darnley [2012] EWCA Crim 1148;
It would often be necessary to examine each individual conviction rather than merely looking at the name of the offence.

The basis of admissibility for such evidence is, effectively, to rebut any defence of mistake or innocent association on the basis of unlikelihood of coincidence (see DPP v Boardman [1975] AC 421). See also R v Chopra [2007] 1 Cr App R 225.). See the following for illustrations of the application of propensity evidence as probative of an important matter in issue in the case;

R v Suleman [2012] 2 Cr App R 30 – evidence of a series of similar offences such that the jury would be entitled to infer they were the work of the same person – issue of identity;
R v O’Leary [2013] EWCA Crim 1371 – evidence in respect of each count that victim of fraud was a dementia sufferer cross admissible to rebut defence that accused believed victims to be compos mentis and as probative of deliberate targeting of vulnerable victims.

Where a prosecutor considers propensity evidence, it is essential not to lose sight of the need for relevance. Accordingly, in R v Samuel [2014] EWCA Crim 2349 - evidence of the accused’s previous convictions for assaulting his partner were not relevant to the issue in the case on a charge of assault which was whether he had the specific intent necessary where he claimed he was too intoxicated to form the necessary mens rea. This can be contrasted with R v B [2017] EWCA Crim 35 where, on charges of sexual offences and child cruelty committed against his children, evidence of previous assaults committed upon his wife were admitted to rebut his assertion that he was simply a strict disciplinarian by demonstrating his propensity to use excessive violence against members of his family.

Section 101(1)(d) is the relevant gateway for determining the issue of cross admissibility where there are multiple accusations against a defendant made by different complainants. Section 112(2) provides.

“Where a defendant is charged with two or more offences in the same criminal proceedings, this Chapter (except section 101(3) ) has effect as if each offence were charged in separate proceedings; and references to the offence with which the defendant is charged are to be read accordingly”.

Accordingly, where prosecutors seek cross-admissibility of a number of counts as probative of an issue in the case, a formal application will be necessary.

Previous acquittals are capable of being bad character evidence if the facts are relevant to an important matter in issue. The use of previous acquittals was thought to be objectionable until the decision of the House of Lords in Z [2000] 2 AC 483 where the evidence of three complainants who had each given evidence in three previous trials for rape was held to be admissible in a fourth rape trial to rebut the defence raised on the basis that the cumulative evidence possessed the degree of probative value required. However, where consideration is given to relying on conduct that has not resulted in a conviction, the case law directs that particular care is required. In R v McKenzie [2008] EWCA Crim 758 Toulson J emphasized the need to consider whether the admission of such evidence would result in the trial becoming unnecessarily complex as well as the need to avoid the litigation of satellite issues which would complicate the issues the jury had to decide.

The purpose of the bad character provisions is to assist in the evidence based conviction of the guilty without putting the innocent at risk of conviction by prejudice. Prosecution applications to adduce bad character evidence as being relevant to an important matter in issue between the prosecution and the defence and should not be made as a matter of routine simply because the defendant has previous convictions. An application should never be made to bolster a weak case.

Collusion or Contamination

The probative value of a number of complainants who each give evidence of similar conduct committed against them by the accused is derived from the unlikelihood that a person would find himself falsely accused of the same or similar offence by a number of different and independent individuals. However, the probative value of such evidence is lost if there is contamination or collusion between complainants. Section 109 provides that references in the Act to the relevance or probative value of evidence which the parties seek to admit through the gateways are based on the assumption that it is true subject to the exception in section 109(2) where it appears that no court or jury could reasonably find it to be true.

Propensity Evidence – Untruthfulness

Such evidence is unlikely to be limited to cases where lying is an element of the crime e.g. perjury – see R v Jarvis [2008] EWCA Crim 488 where the Court of Appeal, obiter, stated that there was no warrant in the statute for such a restrictive view of evidence demonstrating a propensity to untruthfulness (evidence of lying and dishonesty in relation to previous business dealings). See - Norris [2014] EWCA Crim 419 – evidence of previous sustained lying in a court context in mitigation.

Important Matter in Issue between defendant and co-defendant – section 101(1)(e)

By section 104(1)

“Evidence which is relevant to the question whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful is admissible on that basis under section 101(1)(e) only if the nature or conduct of his defence is such as to undermine the co-defendant’s defence.

By section 104(2)

“Only evidence –

Which is to be (or has been) adduced by the co-defendant, or
Which a witness is to be invited to give (or has given) in cross examination by the co-defendant,

is admissible under section 101(1)(e) ”,

This is the gateway intended to deal with ‘cut-throat’ defences. Application is made by the defence. Once the evidence meets the criteria for admissibility, there is no discretion to exclude.

Correcting a False Impression – section 101(1)(f)

Statutory guidance is provided by section 105 which provides that, for the purposes of section 101(1)(f) .

The defendant gives a false impression if he is responsible for the making of an express or implied assertion which is apt to give the court or jury a false or misleading impression about the defendant;
Evidence to correct such an impression is evidence which has probative value in correcting it.

A defendant is treated as being responsible for the making of an assertion of

The assertion is made by the defendant in the proceedings (whether or not in evidence given by him),
On being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is being charged, or
On being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it,

and evidence of the assertion is given in the proceedings.

The assertion is made by a witness called by the defendant,
The assertion is made by any witness in cross examination in response to a question asked by the defendant that is intended to elicit it, or is likely to do so, or
The assertion was made by any person out of court, and the defendant adduces evidence of it in the proceedings. ( section 105(2) ).

Only prosecution evidence is admissible through this gateway i.e. evidence which is to be (or has been) adduced by the prosecution, or which a witness is to be invited to give (or has given) in cross examination by the prosecution ( section 112 ). Only evidence that is necessary to correct the false impression is admissible through this gateway ( sections 105(6) and (7) )

Section 105(3) permits a defendant to withdraw from an assertion or disassociate himself from it.

Attack on Another Person’s Character – section 101(1)(g)

By section 106 , for the purposes of section 101(1)(g) , a defendant makes an attack on another person’s character if

He adduces evidence attacking the other person’s character,
He (or any legal representative appointed under section 38(4) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to cross examine a witness in his interests) asks questions in cross examination that are intended to elicit such evidence, or are likely to do so, or
On being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is charged, or
On being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it.

Evidence attacking another person’s character means evidence to the effect that the other person –

Has committed an offence (whether a different offence from the one with which the defendant is charged or the same one), or
Has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a reprehensible way; and imputation about the other person means an assertion to that effect. ( Section 106(2) ).

Section 106(3) provides that only prosecution evidence is admissible under section 101(1)(g) .

The mere denial of the prosecution case will not be sufficient to trigger this gateway – see R v Fitzgerald [2017] EWCA Crim 556 of where it is being suggested not merely that prosecution witnesses are lying but have conspired to pervert the course of justice by putting their heads together to concoct a false allegation - R v Pedley [2014] EWCA Crim 848 .

Unlike section 105 , section 106 does not contain a provision allowing a defendant to disassociate himself from an imputation. Prosecutors should therefore be cautious when seeking to rely on this gateway on the basis of matters raised by the defendant outside the trial but not relied on in evidence. See the comments in R v Nelson [2006] EWCA Crim 3412 ; “It would have been improper for the prosecution to seek to get such comments before a jury simply to provide a basis for satisfying gateway (g) and getting the defendant's previous convictions put in evidence. Whilst it was not suggested that that had been the motivation of the prosecution in the present case, objectively speaking, that had to have been the situation which had arisen. It followed that that was not a proper basis for meeting the requirements of gateway (g) on admissibility”

Use of Bad Character Evidence

Once admitted, the weight to be attached to bad character evidence is a matter for the jury, subject to the judge’s power to stop a case where the evidence is contaminated (see section 107 – below). Once evidence has been admitted through one of the gateways, it can be used for any purpose for which it is relevant. See R v Highton [2005] 1 WLR 3472 . What is essential however is that the court should be directed clearly as to the reason for the admission of the evidence with an explanation of its relevance and the use to which such evidence can be put (see Chapter 12 of the Crown Court Compendium ).

Evidence upon which the prosecution seek to rely through gateways (d) or (g) is subject to section 101(3) which provides

“The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d) or (g) if, on application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it”.

This exclusionary power comes into play on the application of the defence. The wording in section 101(3) – “must not admit” is stronger than the wording found in section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1978 (LINK) – “may refuse to allow” –see R v Hanson and R v Weir [2005] EWCA Crim 2866 . There is no specific exclusion of section 78 from the provisions of Part 11 of the 2003 Act but the preferred view now is that if the conditions under section 78 are satisfied, the Court has no discretion under section 78 – see R v Tirnaveanu . This is important because section 101(3) does not apply to gateways (c ) and (f) and any application by the defence would have to be made further to section 78 and it is only right that the discretion afforded to the court to exclude evidence upon which the prosecution propose to rely should be the same whatever route to admissibility.

It should be noted that section 78 cannot apply to evidence admitted via gateway (e) –evidence adduced on application by the co-defendant.

Section 103(3) of the Act, in relation to propensity evidence, provides that section 103(2) will not apply

“in the case of a particular defendant if the court is satisfied, by reason of the length of time since the conviction or for any other reason, that it would be unreasonable for it to apply in this case”.

Section 107 gives the court the power to discharge a jury or order an acquittal where evidence has been admitted through any of the gateways (c ) to (g) of section 101(1) where it is apparent that the evidence is contaminated and, as a consequence, any conviction would be unsafe.

To enable a court to determine whether previous convictions or other reprehensible behaviour are admissible through any of the gateways, it is important that the court is furnished with as much accurate information as possible. In some cases, the fact of a previous conviction or convictions will be sufficient to determine relevance and previous convictions can be proved by production of a certificate of conviction together with proof that the person named in the certificate is the person whose conviction is to be proved – section 73 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In other cases however, the details of the previous convictions (or other reprehensible conduct) will be necessary to enable a judge to determine the admissibility of the bad character evidence. See R v M [2012] EWCA Crim 1588 where the Court of Appeal stated that it was imperative that the court is supplied with detailed and accurate information about the conduct to be relied upon.

Prosecutors should therefore seek from the police detailed information in the MG3 about the evidence said to amount to bad character. This should include not only the fact of the previous convictions but as much detail as possible. It will be good practice to obtain the original MG3, relevant statements and the accused’s response to the allegation in their police interview. If a person pleaded guilty, it should be clarified whether or not there was a basis of plea. If there was, the written document should be obtained. All of this material should be obtained as early as possible, preferably in advance of charge.

An accused is entitled to dispute the fact or facts of a conviction. It is expected that the accused should give proper notice of this objection in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules in force.

If the fact of conviction is disputed, section 74 PACE 1984 provides that a person’s conviction as proved by a certificate further to section 73 is proof that he did commit the offence of which he was convicted unless he proves that he did not commit the offence, the burden of proof being upon him. In R v C [2010] EWCA Crim 2971 the Court of Appeal provided guidance as to how this issue should be dealt with in the course of a trial to enable the court to achieve the overriding objective of the Criminal Procedure Rules which is that criminal cases be dealt with justly. This would include the provision of a detailed Defence Statement which would enable the prosecution to consider calling any evidence to confirm the guilt of the earlier convictions. A mere assertion that the fact or facts of previous convictions are incorrect will not suffice.

Where the facts of a previous conviction were disputed, clearly section 74 would be of little application. Guidance in such cases was provided in R v Humphris [2005] EWCA Crim 2030 where the Lord Chief Justice said

“[This case]… emphasises the importance of the Crown deciding that if they want more than the evidence of the conviction and the matters that can be formally established by relying on PACE ,they must ensure that they have available the necessary evidence to support what they require. That will normally require the availability of either a statement by the complainant relating to the previous convictions [in a sexual case] or the complainant to be available to give first-hand evidence of what happened”.

The court emphasized the need to avoid satellite litigation and in particular the need to avoid, if at all possible, the re-calling of witnesses to give evidence about matters the subject of previous convictions. The parties were reminded of the need to seek agreement.

If there is a dispute about previous convictions that cannot be resolved by agreed facts, prosecutors should give very careful consideration to appropriate witness care which will include arranging with the police a witness care plan with consideration being given to special measures applications. It may also be appropriate to have regard to the hearsay provisions of the Chapter 2 of Part 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 .

Section 108 of the Act limits the admissibility of evidence of previous convictions as bad character evidence where the accused is charged with offences alleged to have been committed by them when aged 21 years or over and the previous conviction or convictions were for offences committed before the age of 14 to cases where

Both of the offences are triable only on indictment, and
The court is satisfied that the interests of justice require the evidence to be admissible.

A caution is capable of proving bad character. It can be the subject of dispute in the same way that a conviction may be disputed. In the event a caution is disputed by an accused, the court will exercise considerable care in admitting the caution as evidence of bad character particularly where the caution was accepted in the absence of legal advice. A conviction is significantly different to a caution and the court will carefully consider its powers of exclusion under section 101(3) - R v Olu [2010] EWCA Crim 2975 .

A Penalty Notice does not contain an admission of guilt and does not affect the good character of a person who accepts one – see R v Gore and Maher [2009] EWCA Crim 1424 . They are therefore inadmissible as evidence of bad character ( R v Hamer [2010] EWCA Crim 2053 ).

Prosecutors should give very careful consideration to seeking admission of convictions that are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Section 7(2)(a) of the 1974 Act expressly excludes criminal proceedings from the operation of the general rule that a person whose convictions are spent is to be treated as a person of good character. However, some protection is afforded to a defendant by Criminal Practice Direction V, 21A.3 which provides that no one should refer in open court to a spent conviction without the authority of the judge which authority should not be given unless the interests of justice so require. Accordingly, cases where an application is made by the prosecution to adduce bad character evidence in relation to a spent conviction will be exceptional.

The admissibility of bad character evidence of non-defendants is governed by section 100 of the Act. This provides that such evidence of a person other than the accused is admissible if and only if –

It is important explanatory evidence,
Is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and
Is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, or
All parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible.

Evidence is important explanatory evidence if, without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case and its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial ( section 100(2) ). This subsection mirrors the provision in section 101(1)(c) and it was intended that the same test would be of application to defendants and non-defendants alike.

Section 100(3) of the Act directs the court, when assessing the probative value of the evidence for the purposes of section 100(1)(b) to have regard to

The nature and number of events, or other things, to which the evidence relates;
When those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;
The evidence is evidence of a person’s misconduct, and
It is suggested that the evidence has probative value by reason of similarity between that misconduct and other alleged misconduct

the nature and extent of the similarities and dissimilarities between each of the alleged instances of misconduct;

The evidence is evidence of a person’s misconduct,
It is suggested that that person is also responsible for the misconduct charged, and
The identity of the person responsible for the misconduct charged is disputed

the extent to which the evidence shows or tends to show that the same person was responsible each time.

Evidence of a non-defendant’s bad character cannot be adduced without the leave of the court unless the parties agree. However, once a judge has determined that the criteria for admissibility are met, there is no exclusionary discretion save for the exercise of the case management powers governing, for example, manner and length of cross examination ( R v Brewster and Cromwell [2010] EWCA Crim 1194 ). Prosecutors should only agree to the admission of bad character when one or both of the other gateways are satisfied or it is in the interests of justice to do so.

This section applies to both witnesses and those not called to give evidence except where the issue is one of credibility as the credibility of a non-witness will never be a matter in issue. The section also covers those who are deceased.

The creditworthiness of a witness is a “matter in issue in the proceedings” for the purposes of section 100(1)(b) (see R v S (Andrew) [2006] EWCA Crim 1303 ) However, such bad character evidence will only be admissible if it is “of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole”.

A successful application by the defence may provide the basis for an application for the admission of defendant bad character under section 101(1)(g) of the Act ( an attack on another person’s character) subject to the court’s discretion to exclude under section 101(3) .

In cases where cross examination is restricted by statute, such as section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 where, upon the trial of a sexual offence, the defence seek to cross examine the complainant as to sexual behaviour or to adduce evidence on that matter, if the matter falls within the definition of bad character evidence, the judge will have to be satisfied as to both the requirements of section 100 and section 41.

The procedure for the admissibility of bad character evidence is governed by Part 21 of the Criminal Procedure Rules.. The importance of complying with the rules governing procedure was stressed in R v Bovell; R v Dowds [2005] EWCA Crim 1091 and subsequent cases have stressed the need to provide information in relation to convictions and other evidence of bad character in good time.

A party wishing to adduce evidence of a defendant’s bad character must serve notice in accordance with CrimPR 21.4 on the court officer and each other party:

Not more than 20 business days after the defendant pleads not guilty in the magistrates’ court, or
Not more than 10 business days after the defendant pleads not guilty in the Crown Court.

A party who objects to the admission of the bad character evidence must apply to the court to determine the objection and serve the application not more than 10 business days after after service of the notice.

Notice must be given by a defendant, either orally or in writing, of an intention to adduce evidence of his own bad character as soon as reasonably practicable any in any event before the evidence is introduced by the defendant or in reply to a question asked by the defendant of another party’s witness in order to obtain evidence (CrimPR 21.4(8)).

A court must give reasons for any decision to either allow or refuse the application (Crim PR 21.5). This requirement is imposed by section 110 of the Act.

The court has power, under CrimPR 21.6 to vary the requirements under this Part of the Criminal Procedure Rules which includes a power to dispense with a requirement for notice. Any party seeking an extension must apply when serving the application and explain the delay.

These can be accessed in the Forms section of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is a public document, issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out the general principles Crown Prosecutors should follow when they make decisions on cases.

Prosecution guidance

This guidance assists our prosecutors when they are making decisions about cases. It is regularly updated to reflect changes in law and practice.

Help us to improve our website; let us know what you think by taking our short survey

Go to the survey >

https://rategain.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/index.html

https://shauntfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/index.html

https://karandaaz.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/index.html

https://shunnarah.com/wp-content/themes/genesis-child/lib/woocommerce/js/index.html

https://sigtau.org/wp-content/themes/sigtau/images/index.html

https://stethio.com/wp-content/plugins/elementor-pro/modules/custom-attributes/index.html

1-868-624-7257

Trinidad Office

1-868-639-1809

Tobago office

Bad Character Evidence

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bad_character_evidence/

◦ Definitions

◦ Exclusions

Bad Character of Defendants

◦ Admissibility

◦ Exclusion of Bad Character evidence

◦ Power of Court to discharge

Bad Character of Non-Defendants Policy

◦ Prosecution Policy: Defendants

◦ Prosecution Policy: Non-Defendants

◦ Charging

◦ Case preparation

◦ Proving Convictions and other reprehensible conduct

▪ Convictions

▪ Cautions

▪Penalty Notices for Disorder (PND)

▪ CRIS Reports

▪ Acquittals

◦ Defendants: convictions and reprehensible conduct

◦ Non-Defendants: Convictions and reprehensible conduct

◦ Seven Gateways of Admissibility

▪ Agreement of the parties section 101(1)(a)

▪ Waiver by the defendant section 101(1)(b)

▪ Important explanatory evidence section 101(1)(c)

▪Relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution section 101(1)(d)

▪ Propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged section

▪ Propensity to be untruthful section

▪ Matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant section 101(1)(e)

▪ Evidence to correct a false impression section 101(1)(f)

▪ Attack on another person’s bad character section 101(1)(g)

◦ Offences committed by a defendant when a child: section 108

◦ Assumption of the truth: section 109

◦ Court’s duty to give reasons: section 110

Annex A – Admissibility Process

The admissibility of bad character evidence is set out in Sections 98 to 113 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) which applies to all criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005 (section 141 Criminal Justice Act 2003), see Archbold Chapter 13. The common law rules governing the admissibility of bad character evidence are abolished (section 99(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003) with the exception of the following which are expressly preserved:

Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings evidence of reputation is admissible for the purpose of proving good character, but only so far as it allows the court to treat such evidence as proving the matter concerned (section 9(2) and section 118(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003);
Evidence or cross examination about the complainant’s sexual history in trials for sexual offences continues to be restricted by section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 in addition to section 112(3) (b) Criminal Justice Act 2003 where the behaviour is also “bad character” evidence. This means that in a trial for a sexual offence, to adduce evidence of a complainant’s previous sexual behaviour which is also ‘bad character’ evidence, both tests will have to be satisfied.

Definitions

“Bad character” in criminal proceedings means “evidence of or a disposition towards misconduct” (section 99 Criminal Justice Act 2003). Misconduct means the commission of an offence or other ‘reprehensible conduct’ (section 112 Criminal Justice Act 2003.) This definition applies to both defendants and non-defendants.

This definition is wide enough to apply to conduct arising out of a conviction, or conduct where there has been an acquittal ( R v Z [2000] 2 AC 483) and a person who has been charged with another offence, and a trial is pending, the use of the evidence relating to that charge in current proceedings.

“Reprehensible conduct” should be looked at objectively taking account of whether the public would regard such conduct as reprehensible such as racism, bullying, a bad disciplinary record at work for misconduct; a parent who has had a child taken into care and of course minor pilfering from employers. Conduct that should not be regarded as reprehensible could include consensual sexual activity between adults of the same sex. The term ‘reprehensible conduct’ will avoid arguments about whether or not conduct alleged against a person amounted to an offence where this has not resulted in a charge or conviction.

Evidence of bad character expressly excludes:

evidence which has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged (section

98(a) Criminal Justice Act 2003); and

evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence (section 98(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003). Evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the charge such as: evidence of resisting arrest by running away to imply an acknowledgement of guilt remains admissible outside the hearsay provisions.

The key test of whether evidence is admissible where the two exceptions apply is relevance. If the evidence goes to an issue in the case and tends to prove one of the elements of the offence then it is relevant and admissible. “Criminal proceedings” means “criminal proceedings in relation to which the strict rules of evidence” apply (section 134 Criminal Justice Act 2003) and includes:

A trial or Newton hearing ( R v Bradley [2005] EWCA Crim 20);
A preparatory hearing, because when such a hearing is ordered, “the trial begins with that hearing” (section 30 Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 and R v H [2006] 1 Cr. App. R 4);
A hearing pursuant to section 4A Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964to determine whether the defendant did the act or made the omission charged

( R v Chal [2007] EWCA Crim 2647);

Committal proceedings ( CPS v City of London Magistrates’ Court [2006] EWHC 1153 (Admin);

Admissibility

There is a two stage test for admissibility:

1.The evidence must be admissible through one or more of the seven gateways set out in section 101 Criminal Justice Act 2003:

all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible;
the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross

examination and intended to elicit it; (c)it is important explanatory evidence;

whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where such propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence(section 103(1)(a) Criminal Justice Act 2003);
whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful, except where it is not suggested that the defendant’s case is untruthful in any respect (section

103(1)(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003);

it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a codefendant;
it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant; or
the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.

2.The evidence is admissible if it falls within section 101(1) (a) (b) (c) (e) and (f) Criminal Justice Act 2003. Where the evidence falls with section 101(d) or (g) it is admissible unless, on application by a defendant, it has such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

Exclusion of Bad Character evidence

The court cannot exclude evidence of bad character of its own motion after the prosecution has served notice that it intends to adduce evidence of bad character. The defence can apply to have the evidence excluded under section 101(3) where it is admissible under subsection (d) and subsection (g) (where the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case between the prosecution and the defendant or has become admissible because of the defendant’s attack on another person).

In these two circumstances the court must not admit such evidence if it appears that its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to admit it. In applying the test the court is directed to take account, in particular, of the amount of time that has elapsed since the previous events and the current charge. This is a stricter test than under section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which states that the court may refuse to admit the evidence, whereas section 101(3) states that the court must not admit the evidence if it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.

The court has no power to exclude evidence of bad character which is admissible at the behest of a co defendant once it has passed the test in section 101(1)(e). In particular there is no power under section 101(3) or under section 78 PACE 1984 ( R v Musone [2007] EWCA Crim 1237).

The power of the court to exclude evidence under section 78 PACE 1984 is preserved by section 112(3)(c) Criminal Justice Act 2003 which provides that:

“Nothing in this Chapter affects the exclusion of evidence on the grounds other than the fact that it is evidence of a person’s bad character.”

In practice section 78 PACE 1984 will have a very limited application:

It cannot apply where the defendant has agreed its admissibility or where the defendant has adduced the evidence himself (section 101(1)(a) and section 101(1)(b));
It may apply to circumstances set out in subsection (1)(c) and (1)(f), although as the definition of important explanatory evidence in subsection (1)(c) and evidence in subsection (1)(f) can only be given to the extent that it is necessary to correct the false impression, then it is likely only to apply in rare or extreme cases.

Power of Court to discharge

Where the evidence of bad character is admitted under section 101 paragraphs (c) to (g) and proves to be so contaminated that any resulting conviction would be unsafe, the court may direct an acquittal or discharge the jury at any time after the close of the prosecution case – section 107 Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Key points:

Evidence is contaminated where it is false or misleading in any respect or is different from what it would otherwise have been e.g. it has been affected by an agreement with other witnesses or by hearing the views or evidence of other witnesses.
The power to discharge applies only in the Crown Court to a jury trial (section 107(1) or to a hearing pursuant to section 4A Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 to determine whether the defendant did the act or made the omission charged (section 107(1)(b)).
Section 107 supplements the common law power of the judge to withdraw a case from the jury at any time after the close of the prosecution case, such as no case to answer. It confers a duty on the judge to stop the case if the contamination is such that considering the importance of the evidence to the case, a conviction would be unsafe(section 107(1)(b)). The case should not be stopped if a direction to the jury along the lines in R v H [1995] 2 AC 596 would be sufficient to deal with any potential difficulties.
If the case is stopped, the judge may consider that there is still sufficient uncontaminated evidence against the defendant to merit a retrial or that the prosecution case has been so weakened that the defendant should be acquitted (section 107(1)(b)(ii). If the judge orders acquittal, the defendant will be acquitted of any other offence for which he could have been convicted if the judge is satisfied that the contamination would affect a conviction for that offence in the same way (section 107(2)).

Bad Character of Non-Defendants

“Non-defendants” are not defined in the Act but the term should include victims, whether or not they give evidence, the deceased in cases of homicide, witnesses, police officers who have been involved in the case, third parties who are not witnesses in the case and defence witnesses. Evidence of bad character of non -defendants is admissible only through one of the three gateways in section 100 Criminal Justice Act 2003:

It is important explanatory evidence i.e. without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case; and its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial (section 100(2) CJA 2003);
It has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which is both in issue in the proceedings and is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. In assessing this value the court must have regard to the following factors:The nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence relates;
When those things or events are alleged to have happened or existed;
The nature and extent of the similarities and the dissimilarities between each of the alleged instances of misconduct where the evidence is evidence of a person’s misconduct and it is suggested by the

evidence has probative value by reason of similarity between that misconduct and other alleged misconduct;

The extent to which the evidence shows or tends to show that the same person was responsible each time where the evidence is evidence of a persons misconduct and it is suggested that that person is also responsible for the misconduct charged and the identity of the person responsible for the misconduct charged is disputed;
Any other factors the court considers relevant;
All parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible. Prosecutors should only agree to admitting evidence of the bad character of a prosecution witness when one or both of the other gateways are satisfied or it is in the interests of justice to do so.

NB: The judge has no residual discretion to exclude evidence of a non-defendant’s bad character once it is admissible.

Prosecution Policy: Defendants

The 2003 Act starts from the position that the admission of a defendant’s bad character that is relevant to the case should be admissible. The general exclusionary rule against the admission of previous misconduct and other bad character is abolished and replaced with provision

that evidence is admissible when relevant to the issues in the case and sets out clearly when that will be so. There is nothing in European case-law to suggest that admitting a defendant’s bad character is contrary to a fair trial. In ( X v Denmark Yearbook (1965) vol 8 p 370), the Strasbourg Commission said that, since many member states provide for disclosure of previous convictions in their criminal procedure, it was not prepared to hold that such a procedure was in violation of any provision of Article 6. See also ( Unterpertinger v Austria [1991] 13 EHRR 175).

The provisions of the Act do not have the effect of reversing the burden of proof. They make evidence admissible against a defendant who was inadmissible before, and to that extent make it easier for the prosecution to discharge the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt. This is not the same as requiring a defendant to prove his innocence: ( R v Cowan [1996] QB 373).

The purpose of the bad character of defendants 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 to adduce evidence of a defendant’s bad character should not be made routinely, simply because the defendant has previous convictions, but will be based on the particular circumstances of the case ( R v Hanson , R v Gilmore , R v Pickstone [2005] EWCA Crim 824).

It will often be necessary to examine the facts of the individual conviction rather than merely looking at the name of the offence or the defendant’s record as a whole. Old convictions with no special feature shared with the offence charged are unlikely to be relevant unless they show a continuing propensity.

Although there is no minimum number of events necessary to demonstrate a propensity to commit offences, the fewer the number of previous convictions the less likely the evidence of propensity. A single previous conviction is unlikely to show propensity unless it shows a tendency to unusual behaviour or where the particular circumstances demonstrate probative force in relation to the offence charged.

These factors also apply to reprehensible conduct but where allegations of prior misconduct have not given rise to any previous investigation, the evidence is liable to be stale and incomplete and the defendant may be prejudiced in challenging it.

Where reprehensible conduct is or is likely to be disputed, prosecutors should consider whether a successful application to admit that evidence is likely to complicate and lengthen the trial and to divert its focus from the events charged on the indictment. Where previous convictions provide sufficient evidence of bad character, prosecutors should not seek to adduce unproven allegations. However where the defendant is a serial offender, or where the facts of unproven allegations are strikingly similar, an application to adduce the evidence should be made.

Prosecution Policy: Non-Defendants

The purpose of the bad character provisions for non defendants is to protect witnesses and victims from wideranging humiliating and irrelevant attacks on their credit; and ensures that clearly relevant evidence is admissible. Prosecutors must not consent to the inclusion of evidence of a non-defendants bad character solely to save time or in exchange for defence consent to adduce evidence of the defendant’s bad character. Different tests of admissibility apply for defendants and non-defendants and the test of admissibility for non-defendants is higher than for defendants.

The police should forward to the prosecutor details of a defendant’s bad character including previous convictions, such as the facts of the previous convictions, the nature of any defences used in the previous cases, and whether the defendant pleaded guilty or was found guilty. This should be provided at the earliest opportunity and preferably at the pre-charge stage.

Prosecutors need to consider bad character evidence and the potential for admitting it at every review of the evidence. The MG3 should identify bad character evidence and any risks to admissibility, as part of the evidential stage of the Full Code Test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. If the evidence taken as a whole (including bad character evidence) meets the tests set out in the Code then a prosecution will follow. Where the only evidence against a defendant is that of his bad character, the evidential test would not be satisfied and a prosecution must not take place.

Case preparation

Bad character evidence is not evidence in the case unless and until it is admitted through one of the gateways set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. There is a distinction to be drawn between evidence of bad character submitted in support of an application and evidence in the case. The purpose of an application is to determine whether the evidence of bad character is to be evidence in the case against the defendant.

Rules of court have been made pursuant to section 111 Criminal Justice Act 2003 which require the service of notice where it is proposed to adduce evidence of bad character. The rules are contained in Part 35 Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 at https://www.justice.gov.uk/ guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/ criminal/part_35.htm and the relevant forms can be found at www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/ courts/procedure-rules/criminal/formspage.htm

Proving Convictions and other reprehensible conduct

Convictions

A conviction may be proved against a witness who is cross examined about a previous conviction but denies or does not admit or refuses to answer (section 6 Criminal Procedure Act 1865).

Proof of a conviction in the UK is by production of a certificate of conviction together with proof that the person named in the certificate is the witness whose conviction is to be proved, (section 73 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). If the defence do not agree the details of the bad character, then this will need to be proved in the normal way, such as, by a certificate of conviction, relying on section 74 of PACE 1984 or calling witnesses proving the bad character.

Prosecutors are reminded of their duty not to refer to spent convictions without the leave of the court. The Practice Direction (Criminal: Consolidated) [2002] 3 All ER 904 paragraph 6 Spent Convictions recommends that both court and advocates should give effect to the spirit of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by never referring to a spent conviction when such reference can reasonably be avoided (paragraph 6.4 of the Practice Direction). No one should refer in open court to a spent conviction without the authority of the judge, which authority should not be given unless the interests of justice so require (6.6 of the Practice Direction).

If the defence do not agree the details of the bad character, then this will need to be proved in the normal way, such as, by a certificate of conviction, relying on section 74 of PACE 1984 or calling witnesses proving the bad character.

Where the defendant challenges his conviction, prosecutors should follow the case management principles that follow from the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in R v C [2010] EWCA Crim 2971, in particular that :

It is essential that the defendant provides a detailed defence statement that identifies all the ingredients of the case that he will advance for the purposes of proving that he did not commit the offence he has been convicted of. A bare assertion that he did not commit the offence is inadequate.
The prosecutor should consider the further defence statement and determine whether further admissions of fact should be drafted and are sufficient to deal with the defendant’s denial of guilt.
Witnesses to the original offence should not be called routinely. It would defeat the purpose of the statutory presumption of guilt if the prosecution were compelled to engage in satellite litigation to prove guilt.
Prosecutors should consider the seriousness of the current offence and the weight that evidence of bad character carries in proving the case. Where there is a compelling case without the bad character evidence, careful consideration should be given to whether additional evidence of bad character is necessary. However there is a stronger case for adducing evidence that shows both a propensity to commit the offence with which the defendant is charged and a modus operandi that is “strikingly similar”.
Prosecutors should always seek and carefully assess the views of victims and witnesses before deciding whether they should be called to give evidence again. Prosecutors should be mindful that any approach to victims and witnesses may disturb the sense of finality that the original trial provided. However it should not be assumed that all witnesses will be reluctant to testify. Some victims may be content to give their evidence for a second time as they want to further the public interest in bringing criminals to justice and may not feel the pressure of being on trial themselves that they experienced in the first trial.
It is essential that all witnesses receive a high level of care and support and that applications for special measures are made where appropriate. Where the witness is unable or unwilling to give evidence, even with special measures, consideration should be given to whether the evidence can be adduced as an exception to the hearsay rule. See Hearsay guidance , elsewhere.
Any conviction founding bad character evidence adduced by the Crown will be set out in a

memorandum of conviction which will form part of the Crown’s case. Applying usual case management principles, a defendant should indicate in advance whether they are intending to challenge the validity of the earlier conviction.

When this occurs, tactical consideration should be given to the question of whether the witnesses to the “bad character” offence should be called before the end of the prosecution case, or whether the question should be raised with the judge of postponing the decision to call such witnesses until the end of the defence case. The advantage of the latter approach, which was endorsed as being appropriate in certain circumstances in the case of R v C, is that defendant may decide not to give evidence or he/she may be unconvincing in seeking to undermine the validity of the earlier conviction, in which case it may be felt to be unnecessary to call any witnesses to the “bad character” offence. The views of the trial advocate, reviewing lawyer, and the officer in the case should all be considered before a decision is taken.

The defendant may challenge an admission contained in the caution but must give notice under CPR 35.3(4)(b) 2010. The court must carefully consider its power to exclude that evidence under section 101(3) Criminal Justice Act 2003 where the prosecution seeks to rely on that evidence likely to have a significant impact on the trial. There is a significant difference between a conviction and a caution, and also between an admission contained in a caution without legal advice and an admission made after legal advice or before the court by a plea ( R v Olu and Ors [2010] EWCA Crim 2975). Penalty Notices for Disorder (PND)

A PND is quite distinct from a caution, where a person acknowledges that he has committed a crime. The issue or payment of a PND is neither an admission of guilt nor any proof that a crime has been committed. Evidence of the issue of a PND is inadmissible as evidence of bad character ( R v Homer [2010] EWCA Crim 2053).

CRIS Reports

A CRIS report containing a complaint made to the police by a person who was not prepared to support it and which remained unproven is most unlikely to have substantial probative value, and for the most part has no probative value at all ( R v Braithwaite [2010] EWCA Crim 1082).

Evidence of complainants in respect of whose complaints the defendant has been acquitted are admissible if relevant to the question of whether the defendant is guilty of the offence with which he is currently charged e.g.

where the complainants give similar fact evidence which, if accepted by the jury, have a direct bearing on the current charge: R v Z [2000] UKHL 68.

Defendants: convictions and reprehensible conduct

The prosecution should always seek to prove bad character by asking the defence to make an admission under section 10 Criminal Justice Act 1967. A summary of the facts of the case should also be agreed.

Section 74(2) and (3) of PACE as amended by Part 5 of Schedule 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Act effectively state that where a person’s conviction is proved, he is to be taken to have committed the offence of which he was convicted unless he proves that he did not commit the offence. The burden of proof is on the person seeking to show that the original court’s finding was wrong.

Prosecutors are reminded of the guidance given by the LCJ in R v Humphris [2005] EWCA Crim 2030. It is important to determine whether any evidence other than the actual previous conviction is necessary as evidence of bad character. Where additional evidence is necessary it should be made available and will usually consist of a single witness statement.

There is a general issue in relation to the volume of material provided in support of bad character applications. It is inappropriate to serve evidence that is still subject to a determination by the court, by way of a notice of additional evidence. To do so may lead to the inappropriate service of material; only relevant material should accompany the application.

Any papers that are provided in support of the application do not become evidence in the case until the determination of the application. The inappropriate service of bad character material under a NAE has cost

implications in cases being managed under the Graduated Fee Scheme (GFS), not only for CPS but also for legal aid.

The GFS is a formulaic scheme. The graduated fee is made up of a Base Fee (based on the type of main hearing, the Advocate type and the type of offence), together with separate payments for the number of pages of evidence and the number of prosecution witnesses served in the case. In general terms, for a page to be counted for payment, it must have been served by the prosecution with the original committal/send bundle or with a formal written notice of additional evidence. The more pages that are counted for payment, the higher the fee will be.

The Graduated Fee formula is designed to reflect the nature, complexity and weight of the case. All preparatory work carried out by the advocate, in terms of reading the papers in the case, any contact with defence representatives, the provision and preparation of written and oral advice, the preparation and drafting of written submissions, notices or other documents for use at the main hearing, researching the law and viewing unused material, is assumed in the Graduated Fee. Any application by the defence to have bad character material formally served under a NAE purely to facilitate the inclusion of those pages in the PPE (pages of prosecution evidence) figure should be strongly resisted by the prosecuting advocate. However, if an order is made to serve the bad character material under a NAE, the CPS should comply with it. Once the material has been served under a NAE, it should be counted in the number of pages when calculating the Graduated Fee.

Non-Defendants: Convictions and reprehensible conduct

Where the prosecution is aware that a prosecution witness has previous convictions or cautions, that information should be disclosed to the defence according to the principles set out in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA 1996) and the CPS legal guidance on disclosure. See Disclosure of Previous Convictions of Prosecution Witnesses elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposes no additional duty of disclosure upon the prosecution. The police are not required to make speculative enquiries as to whether witnesses have previous reprehensible behaviour. However, if during the investigation, information about witnesses reprehensible conduct is discovered, this should be disclosed because it goes to the credit of a witness and falls within the disclosure test.

The CPS is also under a duty to disclose to the defence information about police officers who are witnesses that might undermine the prosecution case or that might reasonably assist a defence. It does not matter whether the officers are called as witnesses, their statements are read to the court or their statements are unused material. The defence should be reminded that the convictions may be used only for the purposes of the case and use in any other way may result in a contempt of court: ( Taylor v the Director of the Serious Fraud Office [1998] 3 W.L.R 1040). The confidentiality of information disclosed under the CPIA 1996 is protected by sections 17 and 18 CPIA 1996. Section 100 applies where the prosecution want to adduce bad character evidence of a defence witness. The Rules allow the prosecution to make an application at trial when the names of defence witnesses are not known in advance. Prosecutors should be mindful of the rights and interests of witnesses and third parties and the need to protect them from embarrassing public disclosure of their bad character where the ‘enhanced relevance test’ is not met.

Seven Gateways of Admissibility

Sections 102 and 106 expand on five of the seven circumstances where evidence of the defendant’s bad character is admissible. Section 101(1) (a) and (b) are not further defined in the Act.

Agreement of the parties section 101(1)(a)

Waiver by the defendant section 101(1)(b)

The defendant can adduce his own bad character if he decides it would be helpful to do so such as raising an alibi that he was in prison at the time the offence was committed or that his own character while bad, is less likely to indicate guilt than that of another person.

There is no statutory discretion to exclude evidence;
A defendant may lead evidence of his bad character, if he chooses, and whether or not the co-defendant agrees;
Evidence is inadmissible if the defendant did not intend to elicit the evidence, such as an unsolicited disclosure by a witness of a defendant’s bad character or evidence of bad character elicited in cross-examination due to a carelessly framed question.

Important explanatory evidence section 101(1)(c) Section 102 defines “important explanatory evidence” as evidence which, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.

The definition of important explanatory evidence is the same as in section 100(2) when dealing with nondefendant’s bad character;
Bad character evidence that is comprehensible without additional explanatory evidence is inadmissible. In R v Saint [2010] EWCA Crim 192 the defendant was charged with rape and associated offences that occurred in a car park at night. The prosecution adduced evidence under section 101(c) that the defendant wore camouflage clothing, face paint and night vision goggles when visiting car parks at night to further his interest in “dogging”. CA held that evidence of the defendant’s nocturnal activities was not important explanatory evidence without which

the jury would find it impossible or difficult to understand other evidence;

The prosecution does not require leave before evidence can be admitted but notice will have to be given by the prosecution to adduce such evidence. However, there may be arguments on whether the evidence meets the threshold test.

Relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution section 101(1)(d) Evidence of previous misconduct that has relevance to an issue in the case should be admitted to give courts and juries the fullest possible relevant information for them to determine guilt or innocence.

Key Points:

Facts in issue are those necessary by law to establish the offence or defence. Facts relevant to an issue are those which tend directly or indirectly to prove or disprove a matter in issue;
Relevance to an important matter in issue” means ‘a matter of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole’ (section 112). “Substantial” means more than minor or trivial as in non-defendants bad character above;
If the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case, it passes the threshold for admissibility. There is no requirement for the evidence to have any ‘substantial probative value’;
Section 101(d) should be read in conjunction with section 103 when deciding what is a ” matter in issue”, which includes but is not restricted to:

◦ Whether a defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence (section 103(a));

◦ Whether a defendant has a propensity to be

untruthful, except where it is not suggested that

the defendant’s case is untruthful in any respect.

(section 103(b)).

• Propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged section 103(1)(a)

The defendant may have a propensity to commit crime if he has a desire to commit a particular crime, such as paedophilia. Proof of propensity is not limited to commission of the same kind of offences but could include any evidence that made it more likely the defendant had behaved as charged. Evidence that a defendant had viewed child pornography was capable of being adduced in evidence at trial for sexual assault on a child under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to demonstrate a propensity for offences involving the sexual abuse of children ,but was not automatically admissible. Evidence of possession was not evidence of committing sexual abuse or assault but related to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the Crown. To show a sexual interest in children made it more likely that the allegation of a child complainant was true rather than incidentally made against someone who was unlikely to behave as alleged. ( R v D (N); R v P (A); R v U (S) [2011] EWCA Crim 1474). Key Points:

◦ Where there is no dispute about the facts of the case and the question is whether those facts constitute an offence e.g. on a charge of possession of drugs whether a particular drug

was controlled or not, evidence of propensity will not be admissible as having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence (section 103(3)).

◦ Propensity may be established, without prejudice to any other way of doing so, by evidence that the defendant has been convicted of:

▪ an offence of the same description as the one with which he is charged, i.e. where the statement of offence in a written charge or indictment is in the same terms i.e. the same offence (section 103(2)(a)); or

▪ an offence of the same category as prescribed by the Secretary of State (section 103 (2)). The Secretary of State has prescribed two categories – theft offences and sexual offences on persons under 16 (The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Categories of Offences) Order 2004, SI 2004 No. 3346)(section 103(2)(b)).

NB: The absence of categories for other types of offending does not prevent previous convictions from being admitted if they demonstrate a propensity to commit offences of the same kind. Evidence of such convictions will be admissible under the main provisions of the Act, provided those convictions are relevant and probative.
Evidence of propensity should not be admitted if due to the length of time since the conviction, or for any other reason, the court is satisfied it would be unjust to admit it. The term ‘any other reason’ is not defined, but it is wide enough to include the nature and extent of the similarities and the dissimilarities between each of the instances of misconduct. (section 103(3)). The court would regard as unjust the admission of the bad character evidence that has such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it (the test in section 101(3)).

Propensity to be untruthful section 103(1)(b)

In the majority of contested cases, whether the defendant is telling the truth or whether the defence is true is itself an issue in the case. Propensity becomes admissible to prove untruthfulness, provided that the prosecution contends that the defendant’s case is untruthful in some respect. The types of previous convictions, which may show a propensity to be untruthful, include convictions for perjury, perverting the course of justice (depending on the facts of the case), fraud, deception and other dishonesty offences. Offences that do not involve any element of fraud, dishonesty or deception are not evidence of propensity. If the defendant’s explanation is so similar to that advanced by him on a previous occasion, then it is unlikely to be true. D is accused of robbing a mini-cab driver at knifepoint but claims that he entered the cab only after the robbery had taken place. Where this was an almost identical defence to the one he had raised in another and very similar robbery trial, this will be admissible (subject to the discretion to exclude) ( R v Reid [1989] Crim L. R. 719). Bad character will not be admissible under (section 103(1) (b)) where it is not suggested that the defendant’s case is untruthful in any respect, for example, where the defendant and prosecution are agreed on the facts and the question is whether all the elements of the offence have been made out.

Prosecutors should note that a defendant would always be in jeopardy where he or she has given a previous unsuccessful defence (pleaded not guilty and was convicted). Therefore it is important for prosecutors to obtain as much information about the defendant’s bad character as possible, such as details of the offence, whether it was a plea of guilty or a conviction and what was the nature of the defence.

NB: Section 103(3) only applies to a propensity to commit a crime; evidence of a propensity to be untruthful is subject to section 101(3).

Matter in issue between the defendant and a codefendant section 101(1)(e)

This section applies in cases where there is “cut-throat” defence i.e. where two defendants are charged and their defence is that the other was responsible.

Evidence of a defendant’s bad character is admissible if it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the co-defendant;
There is no power to exclude the evidence under section 101(3) or under section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 once the admissibility threshold has been met ( R v Muson e [2007] EWCA Crim 1237);
The power to admit bad character evidence is restricted to evidence either adduced by the codefendant, or which the co-defendant needs to elicit in cross-examination. Only a co-defendant and not the prosecution can adduce evidence of a defendant’s bad character (section 104(2));
Where the matter in issue is a propensity to be untruthful, the evidence is only admissible if the nature and conduct of the co defendant’s defence is such as to undermine that of the defendant (section 104(1)).

Evidence to correct a false impression section 101(1)

If the court is satisfied that the defendant is responsible for making an express or implied assertion which is apt to give the court a false or misleading impression about him, then evidence of his bad character will be admissible.

A defendant is ‘responsible’ for such an assertion for the assertions that he or she makes during the proceedings but not necessarily whilst giving evidence (section 105(2)(a)), when being questioned after caution (section 105(2)(b)(i)), and on being charged (section 105(2)(b)(ii));
A defendant can also be responsible for assertions made by other people, including a defence witness who makes an assertion during cross examination and the court is satisfied that it was the defendant’s intention to elicit such a response from the witness (section 105(2)(c)) or the question was likely to do so (section 105(2)(d)), and an assertion is made by any person out of court and the defendant adduces evidence of it in the proceedings (section 105(2)(e));
A defendant is not responsible for an assertion if he either withdraws or disassociates himself from it (section 105(3)). The Act is silent on withdrawal and dissociation but the court may give a warning to a defendant of the consequences of not withdrawing or disassociating himself from the assertion but such a warning is not obligatory;
Warnings are particularly important in summary proceedings where the defendant is unrepresented. In such a case, the clerk and the prosecutor should give a warning to the defendant in the absence of the magistrates. Prosecutors should therefore ask the bench to rise briefly in order for this to be done;
A false impression can be created by conduct other than the giving of evidence (section 105(4)). For example a defendant with bad character who attends trial dressed as a priest may constitute the giving of a false impression that he is a man of good character;
Evidence of bad character can only be introduced by the prosecution (section 105(7)) and can only go as

far as it is necessary to correct the false impression given (section 105(6)).

Attack on another person’s bad character section

This is defined as evidence to the effect that the other person has committed an offence or has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a reprehensible way (section

106(2)) and occurs in one of three ways:

The defendant adduces evidence attacking the other person’s character(section 106(1)(a));
He (or his legal representative appointed under section 38(4) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to cross-examine a witness in his interests) asks questions in cross-examination that are intended to elicit such evidence or are likely to do so (section 106(1)(b)); or
The defendant imputes the other person’s character when questioned under caution or on being charged or officially informed he may be prosecuted (section 106(1)(c)). This means that it will be important that the police include such an attack in the record of taped interview.
The person whose character is attacked does not need to be a witness in the proceedings, or a deceased victim, or a person whose hearsay statement is admitted in evidence, or even a named person;
There is no requirement that the character attack should be untrue or unfounded. This prevents the court from determining collateral issues of the truth or otherwise of the defendants allegations;
Where the court determines that an attack has taken place evidence of the defendant’s bad character becomes admissible (but only by the prosecution, section 106(3));
Bad character evidence is admissible against a defendant whether or not the defendant chooses to give evidence. Although evidence will primarily go to an issue of credit may also be relevant to the issue of guilt.
Evidence is subject to the court’s discretion to exclude under section 101(3).

Offences committed by a defendant when a

Child: section 108.

Section 16(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 prohibits any reference in criminal proceedings to any offence in respect which the defendant aged 21 or over was convicted while under the age of 14.

This absolute bar is lifted where:

the previous conviction and the present charge are offences triable only on indictment, and
the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to admit such evidence.

Assumption of the truth: section 109

Section 109(1) places on a statutory basis the general practice of the courts to assume that the relevance of the evidence or its probative value in relation to its admission is true solely for the purpose of determining the admissibility issue.

However, the court need not assume that the evidence is true if it appears to the court, on the basis of the material before it, or of any evidence it hears, that no court or jury could reasonably find it to be true (section 109(2)).

Court’s duty to give reasons: section 110

The court must state its reasons in open court where it:

rules that evidence is evidence of a person’s bad character;
makes a ruling under sections 100 and 101;or
stops the case because the evidence is contaminated.

Where the ruling relates to the magistrates’ court, the ruling and the reasons for it must be entered into the court’s register.

Admissibility of Bad Character Evidence

Questions 1 to 4 relate to the nature of the evidence.

(Section 98) – Is the evidence in question of bad character – i.e. does it show, or tend to show that a person:
Has committed an offence? 
Has engaged in other reprehensive behaviour?

Yes – Go to question 2

No – These rules do not apply

(Section 98(a)) – Does it have to do with the alleged facts of the offence charged?

Yes – Admissible

No – Go to question 3

(Section 98(b)) – Is it evidence of misconduct in connection with investigation or prosecution of the offences charged? Yes – Admissible

No – Go to question 4

(Section 100(1)(c) and (Section 101(1)(a)) – Do all the parties agree to its admission?

No – Go to question 5

Question 5 concerns to whom the bad character relates

Is it evidence of the bad character of a defendant in the case?

Yes – Go to question 8

No -Go to question 6

Questions 6 and 7 relates to Non-Defendant evidence 6. (Section 100(1)(a)) – Is it important explanatory evidence?

Yes – Admissible with leave

No – Go to question 7

(Section 100(1)(b)) – Does it have substantial probative value in relation to a matter in issue, which is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole?

No – Inadmissible

Questions 8 to 14 relate to Defendant evidence

(Section 101(1)(b)) – Is it evidence of the bad character of a defendant that the defendant seeks to adduce himself or herself?

No – Go to question 9

(Section 101(1)(c)) – Is it important explanatory evidence?

No – Go to question 10

(Section 101(1)) – Is it the prosecution that seeks to adduce it, or a co-defendant? The co-defendant – Go to question 11

The prosecution – Go to question 12

Does the evidence have substantial value in relation to a matter of substantial importance in the case?
(Section 101(1)(d)) – Is it relevant to a matter of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole?

Yes – Admissible, but if defendant applies to exclude it, the court must not admit it if it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on fairness of the proceedings that the court ought

not to admit it. (Section 101(3))

No – Go to question 13

(Section 101(1)(g)) – Has the defendant made an attack on another person’s character?

No – Go to question 14

(Section 101(1)) – Is it evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant?

Yes – Admissible only if it goes no further than necessary

to correct the false impression. (Section105(6)) No – Inadmissible

Sent from my iPhone 6

No Comments

Criminal Evidence, the Proof of Bad Character - Essay Example

Subject: Law
Type: Essay
Level: Undergraduate
Pages: 5 (1250 words)
Downloads: 0
Author: haileeparisian

Extract of sample "Criminal Evidence, the Proof of Bad Character"

Check these samples of criminal evidence, the proof of bad character, characteristic of a witness in criminal proceedings, the imposition of the legal burden on the prosecution is a formality, analysis of criminal evidence book by roberts and zuckerman, critically assess what reprehensible behaviour means in section 112 criminal justice act 2003, the intended purpose of the criminal evidence act 1898, criminal justice act in 2003, confusion surrounding the interpretation of sections 101-107 of the criminal justice act 2003, law of evidence - the irac approach.

TERMS & CONDITIONS
PRIVACY POLICY
COOKIES POLICY

IMAGES

Bad Character Evidence
17 Evidence of character evidence of bad character in criminal cases
Bad Character Evidence
(8) character evidence
Bad Character evidence (Essay plan)
Bad character evidence clp evidence law

VIDEO

TE Review, Character Evidence
We found The Worst Marvel Movie (George Lucas is a Furry?!?!)
Character Evidence
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN A SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE
wuthering heights is overrated (rant review)

COMMENTS

Bad Character Evidence: Then and Now
The bad character evidence is meant to show 'the tendency and disposition of the man's mind towards committing or abstaining from committing the class of crime with which he stands charged…'. Thus, by adducing evidence of good character the defendant puts his character in issue, notwithstanding whether he takes the witness stand or not.
Bad Character evidence (Essay plan)
Bad Character evidence Essay plan. Past questions "The reform of the law of evidence relating to Bad Character in the Criminal Justice (Evidence) (NI) Order 2004 has made it easier to prosecute repeat offenders. It has, however, set the conditions for admissibility of such evidence too low." "Evidential rules governing the admissibility ...
'Bad character', tragic errors and deep ignorance
This paper proposes new grounds for the legal ambivalence about 'bad character evidence'. It is suggested that errors based on such evidence are profoundly tragic in the Aristotelian sense: the defendant who previously committed crime is likely to reoffend; nevertheless, she beats the odds and refrains from further crime commission - only to then be falsely convicted based on the very ...
Bad Character Evidence: then and Now
The "Bad Character Evidence: then and Now" essay provides a thorough analysis of the historical evolution of the admissibility of bad character evidence in criminal trials. The essay is well-organized and maintains a clear focus throughout. The author has used a formal tone and presented the topic in a well-structured manner.
Evidence of Bad Character by J.R. Spencer and Hearsay Evidence in
The rule against bad character evidence is most significant for excluding evidence of the defendant's previous bad acts - notably his previous convictions. There have long been exceptions to the exclusionary rule, but the Act in particular expands the admissibility of previous convictions used to show propensity to commit the currently ...
4 The Ethics of Character Evidence
In Chapter 3, we explored the question of whether admitting bad character evidence is prejudicial in the sense that admitting it is likely to distort the fact-finding process.The conclusion was that there is little evidence that admitting bad character does cause prejudice. There may, however, be other ways in which character evidence can have a negative impact on the criminal trial.
The Relevance of Bad Character
Abstract. An important rule of criminal evidence is that evidence of a defendant's previous misconduct (evidence of bad character) is prima facie inadmissible. The usual justification for this rule is that, in most cases, such evidence is either irrelevant or likely to have an unduly prejudicial effect on the fact-finder.
PDF Chapter 18: Evidence of character: evidence of bad character in
Where the bad character evidence sought be introduced, whether by the prosecution or the defence, is in the form of hearsay, the judge ought to have regard to the exclusionary discretion under s 126(1)(b) of the Act: R v Shaid [2019] EWCA Crim 142. The provision states that the court may refuse to admit hearsay if satisfied '…
The Admissibility of Character Evidence: Demystifying the Rules
Code § 1100. Section 1100 states: Except as otherwise provided by statute, any otherwise admissible evidence (including evidence in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, and evidence of specific instances of such person's conduct) is admissible to prove a person's character or a trait of his character.
19. Evidence of character: evidence of bad character in criminal cases
Abstract. This chapter begins with an introduction to the statutory framework governing the admissibility of bad character evidence. It goes on to consider the statutory definition of 'bad character' and to discuss the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal cases under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, namely: the admissibility of the bad character of a person other than the ...
PDF Bad Character Evidence
A key safeguard in relation to the admission of bad character evidence is the summing up by the judge in a jury trial. The judge will direct the jury on the relevance and limitations of the evidence. If the defendant disputes the evidence of bad character this must be addressed in the summing up. The jury should be reminded that bad character ...
The Relevance of Bad Character Evidence in the UK
The following essay shall examine the bad character evidence provisions described in ss. 100 and 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which have emanated from the victim-centered approach of the ...
Bad Character Essay
Essay plan on the law of bad character and human rights evidentiary reforms introduced the criminal justice (evidence) (ni) order 2004, have set the threshold. Skip to document. ... Because of the prejudice which could be provoked by the adducing of bad character evidence, the judge is under a duty to warn the jury that bad character evidence ...
Evidence of Bad Character, 2nd revised edn edited by J.R. Spencer
Search for more papers by this author. Tomas Hamilton, Tomas Hamilton. MPhil/PhD Candidate. School of Law, King's College London. ... intended to negate the possibility of wrongful conviction by a lack of evidence other than bad character. Professor Spencer writes in an extremely clear and concise manner, outlining the position both pre- and ...
Bad Character Evidence Case Study
The objective of this paper is to demonstrate what a bad character evidence(BCE) is and whether Liam Parrish's(LP) BCE of previous convictions should be admitted at trial. The definition and a
Bad Character Evidence
The Legal Framework. "Bad character" evidence is defined in section 98 of the Act which provides that: "References in this Chapter to evidence of a person's 'bad character' are to evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his part, other than evidence which -. Has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with ...
Effect of Bad Character Evidence on Juries
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) was introduced to allow more defendants' bad character evidence to be introduced to juries, in contrast to what was allowed before, under previous law. Defendants or witnesses in a criminal case will often have previous convictions, the CJA allows these previous convictions to be admitted at trial through ...
Bad Character Evidence
101 (1) (g) This is defined as evidence to the effect that the other person has committed an offence or has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a reprehensible way (section. 106 (2)) and occurs in one of three ways: The defendant adduces evidence attacking the other person's character (section 106 (1) (a));
Evidence Bad Character Essay
Bad Character bc essay l.ho 2016 in facts in civil argued that the law of evidence has suffered much abuse. harvey notes that it is slapdash, disjointed and in ... Evidence Bad Character Essay. Course: Evidence Law (LE201) 47 Documents. Students shared 47 documents in this course. University: BAC Education Group. Info More info. AI Quiz.
Criminal Evidence, the Proof of Bad Character
The paper "Criminal Evidence, the Proof of Bad Character" discusses that criminal evidence refers to any display or testament concerning a crime. It can take countless ... Let us write or edit the essay on your topic "Criminal Evidence, the Proof of Bad Character" with a personal 20% discount.