Bad Character: Non-Defendant Flashcards
Under section 100(1) CJA 2003, when can evidence of non-defendant bad character be admitted without court leave?
A. If the prosecution wishes to rely on it
B. If it relates to the credibility of a key witness
C. If it is suggested by the defendant
D. If all parties agree to its admission
D. If all parties agree to its admission
Explanation: Under section 100(1)(c), if all parties agree that the evidence should be admitted, no court leave is needed.
In a burglary trial, the defence wishes to admit evidence that a prosecution witness has a long-standing record of theft to suggest the witness, not the defendant, committed the crime. What must the defence demonstrate?
A. That the witness admitted the thefts
B. That the evidence has substantial probative value to a matter in issue
C. That the thefts occurred recently
D. That the prosecution agrees to the admission
B. That the evidence has substantial probative value to a matter in issue
Explanation: Under section 100(1)(b), the evidence must have substantial probative value in relation to a matter in issue, such as credibility.
A prosecution witness has an old conviction for assault 20 years ago. Defence wants to use it. Which factor would most weaken the argument for admissibility under section 100(1)(b)?
A. The witness was not cross-examined about it
B. The witness has since led a crime-free life
C. The conviction was for a similar offence
D. The conviction is very old and unrelated to the current facts
D. The conviction is very old and unrelated to the current facts
Explanation: When assessing admissibility, courts consider how recent the misconduct is. Old and unrelated misconduct is unlikely to have substantial probative value.
What is ‘important explanatory evidence’ under section 100(1)(a)?
A. Evidence of the non-defendant’s dishonesty
B. Evidence without which the jury would struggle to understand the case
C. Evidence relating to the defendant’s previous misconduct
D. Evidence showing the non-defendant’s motive
B. Evidence without which the jury would struggle to understand the case
Explanation: Important explanatory evidence helps the jury properly understand the case and must have substantial value for understanding the case as a whole.
In a fraud trial, a defendant wants to adduce evidence that a prosecution witness has a history of similar frauds. Which gateway applies?
A. Section 100(1)(a)
B. Section 100(1)(c)
C. Section 101(1)(d)
D. Section 100(1)(b)
D. Section 100(1)(b)
Explanation: This would be using substantial probative value to suggest another individual had the propensity to commit similar offences.
Defence seeks to admit evidence of a non-defendant’s past violent attacks to suggest they committed the violent crime now charged. Which factor will the court most strongly consider under section 100(1)(b)?
A. The similarity between past attacks and the current offence
B. The age of the previous attacks alone
C. Whether the defendant cross-examines the non-defendant
D. Whether the victim consents to disclosure
A. The similarity between past attacks and the current offence
Explanation: The court must consider the similarity between past and present misconduct under section 100(3).
Under section 100, which of the following is required for all non-agreed non-defendant bad character evidence?
A. Leave of the court
B. Approval of the defendant
C. Cross-examination of the non-defendant
D. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
A. Leave of the court
Explanation: Unless all parties agree, the court must grant permission before non-defendant bad character evidence is admitted.
In a robbery case, the defence wants to show that another person previously committed robberies using the same unusual method used in this offence. Which consideration under section 100(3) is most important?
A. The number of robberies previously committed
B. The defendant’s relationship with the non-defendant
C. Whether the non-defendant is available for cross-examination
D. The nature and extent of the similarities between the past robberies and this offence
D. The nature and extent of the similarities between the past robberies and this offence
Explanation: When alleging another person committed the offence, close similarity is key to having substantial probative value.
Defence applies to admit evidence that a prosecution witness has recently been convicted for lying to the police. What is this most relevant to?
A. Motive
B. Propensity to violence
C. Propensity to be untruthful
D. Propensity to steal
C. Propensity to be untruthful
Explanation: A conviction for lying to the police clearly relates to the witness’s credibility and truthfulness.
If all parties agree, which gateway under section 100 applies for admitting non-defendant bad character?
A. Section 100(1)(c)
B. Section 100(1)(a)
C. Section 100(1)(b)
D. Section 100(3)
A. Section 100(1)(c)
Explanation: Section 100(1)(c) states that agreement of all parties makes the evidence admissible without needing leave of the court.
During a trial, the defence points to a prosecution witness’s violent past to argue that they fabricated their assault accusation. Under which gateway must this be admitted?
A. Section 101(1)(g)
B. Section 100(1)(b)
C. Section 101(1)(e)
D. Section 100(1)(a)
B. Section 100(1)(b)
Explanation: The defence would argue that the witness’s prior misconduct has substantial probative value regarding credibility, fitting section 100(1)(b).
