F1.14 – Good Character Flashcards
Why is evidence of the good character of a prosecution witness generally inadmissible to bolster the witness’s credibility?
It amounts to ‘oath-helping’ (see Robinson [1994] 3 All ER 346 at F7.63).
When may evidence of the good character of a prosecution witness be admissible?
Examples:
(a) rape
(b) murder
(c) GBH
If relevant to an issue in the case.
(a) in a case of rape, the defence being consent, evidence of the complainant’s disposition to resist any form of pre-marital sexual intimacy (Amado-Taylor [2001] EWCA Crim 1898).
(b) in a case of murder, the defence being self-defence, evidence of the deceased’s non-violent disposition (RG [2002] EWCA Crim 1056).
(c) in the case of inflicting GBH, the defence being self-defence accompanied by evidence that the complainant had started the violence making racially abusive comments, evidence to show that the complainant was not a racist (Lodge [2013] EWCA Crim 987).
What are the four propositions relating to good characted that were said to be well established in Marder [2018] EWCA Crim 2454?
(1) generally, evidence is not admissible simply to show that a prosecution witness has a good character in the sense that he or she is a generally truthful person who should be believed.
(2) However, evidence is admissible if it is relevant to an issue in the trial.
(3) the category of issues to which evidence of disposition is not closed.
(4) If the evidence is admitted because ‘issue-relevant’, the judge should ensure that the effect of admitting it is not to water down the burden of proof on the prosecution and any good character direction given for the accused.
(1) What did the Court of Appeal observe regarding a Crown witnesses’ credibility in G (T) [2017] EWCA Crim 1774, [2018] 1 Cr App R 14 (218), where the defendant was of good character and the judge had given an appropriate character direction?
(2) What is flawed with this observation?
(3) What should the practice be?
(1) That unless a jury hear that a Crown witness is not of good character, they will no doubt assume that there is nothing to speak against the witness’s credibility.
(2) it can be submitted that in these circumstances the jury may well assume the exact opposite i.e. that the complainant is of bad character on the basis that if the complainant were of good character, then evidence to that effect would have been adduced in the same way that evidence of good character had been adduced on behalf of the accused.
(3) It is submitted that when an accused contradicts a prosecution witness on a relevant issue, both of them are of good character, evidence is given of the accused’s good character and the jury are directed that it is relevant to the accused’s credibility, then evidence of the good character of the prosecution witness should also be admissible and the jury should receive a direction that it is relevant to the witness’s credibility accompanied by a rider, of the kind described in Mader, as to its limitations and effect.
