Character Evidence

Question 1

Different types of Character:

Answer 1

Good Character: No precons or evidence of reprehensible conduct

Effective Good Character: D has precons that are old, minor or relate to offences of a different nature

Positive Good Character: adducing evidence that D has behaved virtuously

Question 2

Methods of admission of good character:

Answer 2

• Cross examination of a police officer who can confirm D has no precons
• Formal admissions
• Examination in chief of a defendant as to their character
• Calling a character witness as part of the defence case

Question 3

R v Hunter:

Answer 3

Authority in this area and elevated importance of the discretion of the TJ and discouraged giving of GC directions where there was evidence of BC or reprehensible conduct.
Also permits a modified GC direction

Question 4

Definition of Bad Character:

Answer 4

s. 98 Criminal Justice Act 2003:
evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his part, OTHER than evidence which
(a) has something to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or
(b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence

Question 5

S.100

Answer 5

Non- Defendant Bad Character:

Only admissible if:

(a) it is important explanatory evidence,
(b) it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—
(i) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and
(ii) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, or
(c) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible.

Question 6

s. 101

Answer 6

The Gateways to D’s bad character:
(a )all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,
(b) 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,
(d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution,
(e) it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,
(f) it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, or
(g) the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.

Question 7

s. 101(1)(a)

Answer 7

No need to make an application if all the parties agree

Question 8

s. 101(1)(b)

Answer 8

Evidence adduced by D in cross-examination - D may want to do this e.g if he was in prison at time of the offence

Question 9

s. 101(1)(c)

Answer 9

Important explanatory evidence - without it, it would be impossible to understand the narrative

Question 10

s. 101(1)(d)

Answer 10

The propensity to commit offences of the kind charged:

R v Hanson - leading case on whether BC evidence establishes a propensity

Question 11

R v Hanson

Answer 11

1. ) Does D’s history establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged
2. ) Does that propensity make it more likely that D committed the offence charged?
3. ) Where previous offences are of the same description or category as the offence charged, would it be unjust to rely on them?
4. ) In any event, would proceedings be unjust if admitted?

Question 12

s. 101(1)(e)

Answer 12

Important matter in issue between D and Co- D

Question 13

s. 101(1)(f)

Answer 13

Correcting a false impression - leave of court always required for this gateway

Question 14

s. 101(1)(g)

Answer 14

Attack on another persons character -
triggered when an attack is made on any person, living or dead - regardless if they are a witness or not.
- leave of court required

Question 15

Procedural points:

Answer 15

• Notice and applications required

- Including for an application to exclude bad character

Question 16

Direction on Bad Character:

Answer 16

Also came from Hanson:

(1) Give jury a clear warning against the dangers of placing undue reliance on previous convictions;
(2) stress that evidence of bad character cannot be used to bolster a weak case, or to prejudice a jury against the D
(3) emphasise that the jury should not infer guilt from the existence of convictions