Evidence// bad character intro Flashcards
What is the definition of bad character in s98 Criminal Justice Act 2003?
’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:
(a) has 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.’
What is misconduct defined as in s112 CJA 2003?
The commission of an offence or other reprehensible behaviour.
What is meant by reprehensible behaviour?
- reprehensible connotes some degree of moral blameworthiness
- behaviour isn’t reprehensible just because it’s morally lax (in law, having an affair wouldn’t be considered bad character)
- evidence of membership of a gang is evidence of reprehensible behaviour
How may bad character be shown?
- previous convictions in the UK
- previous convictions in a foreign where such offences have a domestic equivalent (blasphemy - unlikely to be bad character)
- cautions
- acquittals, where the prosecution contends that in fact the defendant was guilty of the previous offence of which D was acquitted
- agreed facts that amount to reprehensible behaviour
- witness evidence of a reputation for reprehensible behaviour
Where the prosecution relies on evidence of previous acquittals, is it open to it to assert that the defendant did commit the offence of which D was previously convicted?
Yes.
The double jeopardy rule isn’t transgressed so long as…
the prosecution doesn’t seek to have the defendant punished for the previous offences.
Z [2000] 2 AC 483
In this case (a rape case where the defence was consent) it was permissible for the prosecution to rely on four previous rape allegations where the same defence was advanced, three of which resulted in acquittals, to show that Z had a propensity to rape and to assert that consensual intercourse had taken place. All four previous complainants were allowed to give evidence and the jury were entitled to assess their credibility regardless of the verdicts reached in the previous trials
-The logical corollary of this position is that evidence of a previous conviction is in law a rebuttable presumption that the defendant committed the said offence thus the defendant is entitled to adduce evidence tending to show they were wrongly convicted.
Section 98 CJA 2003 specifically excludes evidence of misconduct which..
a) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged
b) is committed in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence
Does evidence which falls within the s98 definition have to satisfy any of the conditions set out in ss100 (gateways to admissibility of non-defendants bad character) or 101 (gateways to admissibility of defendants bad character) ?
No.
If a defendant tells a demonstrable lie during an interview (subject to relevance), is this a matter which would require the prosecution to make a bad character application by virtue of s98(b)?
No.
Where it’s necessary as part of the prosecution case to prove criminal conduct by the defendant or another, will evidence of that conduct fall outside s98?
Yes
example - offences of driving while diaqualified where the prosecution will have to prove that D committed an earlier offence & was disqualified as a result.
Is evidence of attempts at jury tampering or witness intimidation bad character evidence?
No because these are examples of misconduct connected with the investigation or prosecution of the offence.
