Bad character MCQs Flashcards
George is accused of sexual assault. He has a number of convictions for sexual offences. George has pleaded not guilty to the current allegations, and now faces trial. On the day George is due to give evidence, he attends court in his regimental blazer and gives evidence in which he expresses revulsion at sexual offences.
What should the trial judge do regarding the prosecution’s application to adduce evidence of George’s bad character?
Allow the prosecution to adduce evidence of George’s bad character, as important explanatory evidence.
Allow the prosecution to adduce evidence of George’s bad character, as he has essentially made an attack on another person’s character.
Allow the prosecution to adduce evidence of George’s bad character, to correct the false impression he has created.
Refuse to allow the prosecution to adduce evidence of George’s bad character.
Allow the prosecution to adduce evidence of George’s bad character, to correct the false impression he has created.
Correct. The evidence is admissible under section 101(1)(f) to correct a false impression given by George. Section 105(1)(a) mentions the defendant ‘making an express or implied assertion which is apt to give the court or jury a false or misleading impression about the defendant’ which may be given by conduct such as they way George dresses (s.105(4) and (5)). Here, there is an express assertion of revulsion at sexual offences which is at best misleading, as he has convictions for sexual offences. By wearing a regimental blazer, arguably he is making an implied assertion by his dress that is likely to mislead, an assertion that perhaps he is not the sort of person that would do something like this, because he is disciplined and protects people.
The other options were incorrect.
While the gateway to admissibility of attacking another person’s character (s.101(1)(g)) is broadly defined, George has not made an attack on another person here merely by pleading not guilty and expressing revulsion at sexual offences.
The purpose of gateway s.101(1)(c) is not to contradict George but to help explain to the jury other evidence in the case.
Faisal is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (‘ABH’). His defence is self-defence. Faisal is of previous good character. The complainant, Gamal, has a number of convictions for offences of violence, including ABH. Defence counsel for Faisal applies to the court for leave to adduce evidence of Gamal’s convictions.
What is the best course for the Judge to take regarding the admissibility of evidence of Gamal’s convictions?
Allow the evidence to be admitted, as Faisal has attacked Gamal’s character.
Allow the evidence to be admitted, as it is important explanatory evidence
Allow the evidence to be admitted, as Gamal has attacked Faisal’s character.
Allow the evidence to be admitted, as it clearly has substantial probative value in relation to a matter in issue.
Allow the evidence to be admitted, as it clearly has substantial probative value in relation to a matter in issue.
Correct. Faisal alleges he committed ABH in self-defence against Gamal. Section s.100(1)(b) and s.100(3) taken together would suggest that Gamal’s convictions for offences of violence, including ABH are directly relevant to his propensity towards similar behaviour alleged by Faisal.
The evidence does not fall within the meaning of important explanatory evidence under s.100(2), as the court would still be able to understand the other evidence in the case for example.
There is no statutory gateway for the admission of Gamal’s bad character evidence as a non-defendant because: * Gamal has attacked Faisal’s character; or * Faisal has attacked Gamal’s character.
D is charged with GBH on A. The offence is said to have taken place because D believed that A was responsible for implicating him (grassing) in a drugs case for which he was sentenced to a custodial sentence. When D was released from prison, it is alleged D went round to A’s house (wearing facial coverings) about 2 months later and attacked A by way of retaliation. D denies the offence. No one else is alleged to have been involved.
What is the most likely course of action the prosecution would to take in relation to the D’s character?
Make an application to adduce the evidence as important explanatory evidence to be admitted through the s.101(1)(c) gateway.
Make an application to adduce the evidence to show a propensity to commit offences of the type charged.
Make an application to adduce the evidence under s 101(1)( e )as it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant.
No application is needed because the previous relationship between the men is part of the facts of this case hence outside the s.98 definition of bad character evidence. in particular explanatory evidence.
Make an application to adduce the evidence as important explanatory evidence to be admitted through the s.101(1)(c) gateway.
This is the best answer. This is evidence without which the jury will find it difficult to understand the rest of the case. These parties have a history, which provides a context for this alleged offence. Without it, the jury would be presented with an incomplete picture.
The other options were not the best answer.
A previous for drugs offences does not on its own suggest a propensity to commit an offence of GBH. It is not the same description or category.
While there is some case law to the effect that evidence of motive is part of the facts of the case and therefore outside s.98, it is not clear.
Gateway 101(1) ( e ) is available to a co-defendant and in this case there is no co-defendant.
While s78 PACE allows the judge to exclude bad character evidence the facts of this case are not such that it is likely that the judge would exercise such discretion. Sections 101 (3) and 103(3) only apply to certain gateways
Julia is standing trial in relation to two counts of theft. You are prosecuting. Julia decides to give evidence and during her evidence she states that she has never been in trouble before and is not dishonest. You are aware that she has two previous convictions for theft committed last year. What is the best application to make?
Do not make any application in relation to her previous convictions, it would be unfair to refer to them in the circumstances.
Adduce the previous convictions for theft on the basis that they are important explanatory evidence
Seek agreement with the defence that Julia’s previous convictions for theft should be admitted into evidence
Apply to adduce her previous convictions for theft on the basis that you are correcting a false impression given by the defendant
Apply to adduce her previous convictions for theft on the basis that you are correcting a false impression given by the defendant
This is the best application to make. Section 101 (1) (f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is the gateway which enables the prosecution to adduce evidence of the defendant’s bad character where he or she has given a false impression. During evidence, the defendant has stated that she has never been in trouble before and is not dishonest so you would apply to adduce her previous convictions for theft to correct the false impression she has given to the jury.
You represent Luke who is charged with Fraud. You speak to Luke in conference about the offence and he instructs you that he wishes to plead not guilty. You have his papers which indicates that he has no previous convictions or cautions. Luke asks whether that will help his case and whether the court will take it into account. He tells you that he once had an affair with another woman whilst married to his wife but otherwise he is an honest guy.
What advice should you provide to Luke regarding the fact that he has no previous convictions or cautions?
You should advise Luke that the judge will not mention anything about character or the fact that he has no previous convictions or caution.
You should advise Luke that he is entitled to a nearly good character (Nye) direction as he has no previous convictions or cautions but as he had an affair the court can take this into account as other reprehensible behaviour.
You should advise Luke that he is entitled to a good character (Vye) direction meaning that the Judge will advise the jury that he has no previous convictions of cautions.
You should advise Luke that he can tell the court that he has no previous convictions or cautions during his evidence but the judge won’t mention this.
You should advise Luke that he is entitled to a good character (Vye) direction meaning that the Judge will advise the jury that he has no previous convictions of cautions.
Correct – as a person who has never been in trouble before, Luke is entitled to a good character direction. The fact that he had an affair has no bearing on this case and should not be something that the jury hear about.
You are representing George who has pleaded not-guilty to an offence of theft and is due to have his case heard in the magistrates’ court. George has 6 previous convictions for theft and the prosecution have requested a pre-trial hearing to make a bad character application.
At the pre-trial hearing you successfully argue that the convictions should not be admitted at the trial.
On the day of trial the case is being heard by a different bench of magistrates than those that decided the bad character application.
Which of the following best represents what the trial bench should do with regards to the previous convictions?
The trial bench are not bound by the decision made at the pre-trial hearing but decide that the previous convictions should not be heard.
The trial bench are bound by the decision made at the pre-trial hearing and should not allow the previous convictions to be heard.
The trial bench are not bound by the decision made at the pre-trial hearing and decide that the previous convictions should be heard.
The trial bench are bound by the decision made at the pre-trial hearing but only if the trial bench is made up of the same magistrates who sat at the pre-trial hearing.
The trial bench are bound by the decision made at the pre-trial hearing and should not allow the previous convictions to be heard.
Correct – in summary trial procedure a pre-trial ruling is binding until the conclusion of the case. This means that the decision made at the pre-trial hearing not to allow the previous convictions to be heard at trial will be binding on the trial bench.
Ben is charged with robbery. After arrest he was interviewed. In interview he claimed that it was a case of mistaken identification. At trial, the prosecution adduce evidence of Ben’s interview. The prosecution agree that Ben is a man of good character. Ben does not give evidence, but in her closing speech defence counsel reminds the jury of what Ben said in interview.
What directions should the trial judge give to the jury regarding Ben?
The judge should give the jury directions regarding Ben’s credibility and propensity to commit offences.
The judge should only give the jury a direction on Ben’s credibility.
No direction should be given to the jury regarding Ben’s propensity to commit offences or his credibility.
The judge should only give the jury a direction regarding Ben’s propensity to commit offences.
The judge should give the jury directions regarding Ben’s credibility and propensity to commit offences.
Correct. Since Ben is of good character and relies on his pre-trial explanations given in interview, the judge should give him the two-limb good character direction. The jury should take Ben’s good character into account in weighing the credibility of the evidence Ben gave in interview. The jury should take into account Ben’s good character in considering the likelihood of Ben having committed the robbery. The judge should indicate that good character, in and of itself, cannot amount to a defence. The other options are either incorrect or incomplete.
Lenny is on trial for fraud. Lenny has two previous convictions of fraud by false representation, 11 and 12 years ago. On one occasion he pleaded guilty and on the other he pleaded not guilty. Lenny has one conviction for driving with excess alcohol, 7 years ago which he pleaded guilty to. He has a conviction for a sexual offence 6 years ago which he pleaded not guilty to. Finally, Lenny has a conviction for theft 2 years ago and he pleaded guilty to that offence.
An application by the prosecution to adduce evidence of some of the convictions through the s.101(1)(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003 gateway to show propensity was made before the trial and was unsuccessful. However, Lenny, during his evidence in chief, has alleged that one of the police officers involved in the investigation of the case is corrupt. The prosecution wishes to adduce evidence of Lenny’s previous convictions through the s.101(1)(g) gateway.
What is likely outcome of the bad character application?
All of Lenny’s previous convictions will become admissible because fairness demands that where he has disputed the honesty of a police officer, the jury should have as full a picture as possible of the character of the person making the allegation.
The previous convictions for offences of dishonesty will be ruled admissible. The other convictions are either irrelevant or it would be unfair to admit them.
The previous convictions will not be allowed to be adduced because what Lenny said in his evidence does not amount to an attack on the character of another.
The previous convictions where Lenny pleaded not guilty are likely to be ruled admissible because they are capable of showing a propensity to be untruthful.
The previous convictions for offences of dishonesty will be ruled admissible. The other convictions are either irrelevant or it would be unfair to admit them.
This is the best answer. The s.101(1)(g) Criminal Justice Act 2003 gateway is subject to the fairness test in s.101(3). It would be unfair to admit evidence of the sexual offence committed six years ago as it is not directly relevant to the issues in this case and would have a hugely prejudicial effect. The admission of evidence of the driving offence is unlikely to help the jury to perform its task.
The other options were not the best answer.
This is clearly an attack on the character of the police officer.
While the gateway at s.101(1)(g) is largely about being fair by giving the jury an idea of the character of the person making an attack on the character of another, it would not be fair, for example, to let the jury know about the sexual offence six years ago.
While it is true that a not guilty plea followed by a conviction is a way of showing a propensity to be untruthful, so is the commission of offences that have untruthfulness as an element of the offence. Admitting the offences where there was a not guilty plea would admit the sexual offence.
You represent Tony, aged 24, who is charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent. His case is that the incident had nothing to do with him, and that the complainant was attacked by members of the gang to which he (the complainant) belongs. Tony says that the complainant won’t say who was actually responsible for the attack out of fear of reprisals from his fellow gang members. The complainant and other members of the gang (all of whom have convictions for offences of violence) will give evidence that Tony committed the offence, as they believe that he is a member of a rival gang.
Tony has previous convictions for theft (shoplifting) 9 years ago and driving while disqualified 7 years ago. On both occasions he pleaded guilty.
What advice would you give Tony about the best way to deal with these convictions during the trial?
He should refrain from expressly alleging that the prosecution witnesses are lying, either directly or through you. To do so would be to allow the admission of his previous convictions through the s.101(1)(g) gateway.
He should give you permission to adduce evidence of his previous convictions, as there are tactical advantages to doing so.
He should give evidence of his previous convictions in order to forestall any attempt by the prosecution to adduce evidence of them as evidence of his propensity to commit offences.
He should avoid any mention of his previous convictions, as the jury have no right to know about them and if they do know about them, they will think of him as a criminal.
He should give you permission to adduce evidence of his previous convictions, as there are tactical advantages to doing so.
This is the best answer. There are a number of advantages to this course of action of dealing with this evidence. First, you can ask the judge to give a modified good character direction in summing up. These offences are old and minor and of a different type from that charged, so the judge may agree to do this. Secondly, you can make the points in closing that he has never before committed violent offences and he has always pleaded guilty when he has been charged with an offence. Thirdly, with the issue of your client’s previous convictions out of the way, you are free to put your case that the prosecution witnesses are lying, to them, strongly. Your defence relies on showing the jury that the prosecution witnesses are lying. You are in a much better position if you can come right out and put it to them that they are lying. Fourthly, any application you make to adduce evidence of any previous convictions of the prosecution witnesses under s.100 will not have any effect on your client. The prosecution will not make an application to adduce your client’s previous convictions as evidence of propensity to commit offences– the previous convictions do not indicate any relevant propensity.
You are instructed to prosecute Dylan and to attend the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing. He is charged with robbery. The alleged facts are that he went to the house of Steve, a known drug dealer, in the company of a number of men. When at Steve’s house they threatened him with a hammer and a crossbow then demanded that he hand over a large sum of money. Steve gave them his wallet and a small amount of cash that was kept in his house. The prosecution’s case is that the robbery was committed because Dylan believed that Steve owed him money as a result of their previously having worked together as drug dealers and importers.
Five years ago Dylan and Steve were jointly charged with conspiracy to import class A drugs. They pleaded not guilty and were acquitted after a trial. Four years ago they were jointly charged with supplying class A drugs. The prosecution was discontinued after a number of prosecution witnesses became unavailable.
What is the best course of action for you to take in relation to the previous charges?
Make an application to adduce evidence of the previous joint charges as important explanatory evidence to be admitted through the s.101(1)(c) gateway.
Make no application in relation to the previous joint charges at any stage, as it would be in breach of the Code of Conduct to make an allegation that is not supported by evidence of a conviction.
Make no application before trial but be prepared to make the application at trial to adduce evidence of the previous joint charges to correct a false impression through the s.101(1)(f) gateway, if, for example, Dylan claims that he has never met Steve before.
Make no application in relation to the previous joint charges but adduce evidence of them at trial. No application is needed because the previous relationship between the men is part of the facts of this case hence outside the s.98 definition of bad character evidence.
Make an application to adduce evidence of the previous joint charges as important explanatory evidence to be admitted through the s.101(1)(c) gateway.
This is the best answer. This is evidence without which the jury will find it difficult to understand the rest of the case. These men have a history, which provides a context for this alleged offence. Without it, the jury would be presented with an incomplete picture.
The other options were not the best answer.
Waiting to correct a false impression at trial might never happen. If you don’t make an application under the Criminal Procedure Rules, Part 21, you might not get another chance.
Hanson and other cases make it clear that previous allegations can be used as bad character evidence even where there is no conviction. There is therefore no breach of the code in making the application.
While there is some case law to the effect that evidence of motive is part of the facts of the case and therefore outside s.98, it is not clear. What if the judge does not agree with you? Much safer to make the application. In theory possible but in practice too risky to seriously contemplate.
