Character Evidence

Question 1

Hanson

Answer 1

Test for admissibility of BC under s 101(1)(d) CJA 2003 (s 103(1)(a)):
Does history of convictions show propensity?
Does propensity make it more likely D committed offence?
Is it unjust to rely on convictions of same category and will proceedings be fair?
Considerations: degree of similarity, strength of crown’s case, age of convictions, special features, number of convictions

Question 2

Hanson (in relation to s 101(2)(d) and 103(1)(b)

Answer 2

Narrower than lack of credibility: telling lies must be part of earlier conviction or facts surrounding case eg not guilty plea

Question 3

Lawson

Answer 3

D1 allowed to adduce evidence of D2’s conviction for wounding as evidence of credibility. Appeal courts only interfere on wednesbury grounds

Question 4

Selvey

Answer 4

D lost shield even where imputation was necessary part of his defence (that V was male prostitute). LC had proposed imputations should not include evidence to do with alleged facts of offence but not accepted in leg

Question 5

Stephenson

Answer 5

Broad view of credibility taken in s 100(1) CJA 2003. Test of admissibility is whether BC sufficiently persuasive to be worthy of consideration by fair minded jury on issue of creditworthiness

Question 6

Brewster

Answer 6

Judge wrongly refused leave for V to kidnapping being cross examined on her previous convictions for shoplifting and manslaughter

Question 7

Vye: should GC relate to propensity or credibility or both?

Answer 7

Guidelines on judicial directions:
If D does not testify but makes exculpatory statement to police, direction of credibility given.
If neither testified not makes statement then only direction on propensity given.
D with GC entitled to GC direction even if tried with a D with a record.
Failure to give such direction could lead to conviction being overturned.

Question 8

Phillips

Answer 8

D wrongly denied right to adduce evidence of coD’s BC. Held conviction nevertheless safe. Threshold for admissibility under s 101(1)(e) much higher than under CEA 1898

Question 9

Renda

Answer 9

R claimed had been injured while serving in army and worked regularly as security guard. Both claims false. CA held rightly examined under s 101(1)(f) in reprehensible behaviour including violent attack not leading to conviction.
Decision contrasted with Weir where held should not go further than necessary to correct false impression given.

Question 10

Rowton

Answer 10

Teacher charged with assaulting pupil called Ws to attest he had general good reputation. Pros’s evidence of contrary individual option inadmissible as evidence of character should be general rep not isolated acts.

Question 11

Definition of BC

Answer 11

S 98 and 112 CJA 2003