Previous Convictions / Bad Character Exceptions

Question 1

THÉ RULE :

Section 1 of criminal justice (evidence) Act 1924 to Section 1 (e) and (f) of 1924 act

Answer 1

— changed common law rule —that accused could not testify @his own trial

—exclusionary rule —enshrined in constitution

—if no cross examination allowed—/ accused would be free to falsely claim he is of good character /attack the character of prosecution witness

—his only punishment would’ve been perjury

—COMPROMISE reached —- Section 1 (e) and (f) of 1924 act

Question 2

Section 1 e and f - what happens if previous misconduct admissible under 1(f) tend to incriminate him — admissible under 1(e)??

Answer 2

Discussed in Jones v dpp

—accused can be asked any question relevant to his guilt

—once it’s not prohibited by section 1(f)

—s1(f) — shield of protection

—only applies if accused decides to testify
Phrase «tending to show»— meaning established in Jones v dpp

Facts;
Appellant—convicted of murdering -girl guide
—3 months earlier —convicted of raping other girl guide

SIMILARITIES
Police questioned him— claimed he’d an alibi—sister in law

Changed story —claimed she was a prostitute

Trial -prosecution sought to cross examine him —about similarities

—accused claimed—it breached s 1f

CA upheld conviction

HOFL— question of law of general public important

Tending to show—meaning —tending to reveal for the first time

Held- questioning allowed —appeal dismissed

Section 1f—prohibits questions that tend to show—that accused has been convicted/charged with any offence

Section

Question 3

Section 1f— applicable to suit actions where accused was ACQUITTED of previous misconduct ??

Answer 3

Maxwell v dpp

Appellant doctor—chartered with manslaughter
—prosecution- alleged- carried illegal abortion

Gave evidence of his own good character

Prosecution —cross examined him— on previous similar charge he was acquitted for

Viscount sankey Lc- for questions to be admissible under s1f— MUST BE RELEVANT —to issue of the accused’s character

Here—fact that accused was we previously charged and acquitted— was IRRELEVANT

Question 4

EXCEPTIONS TO PROHIBITION

Answer 4

4 exceptions —s1(f)—accused can be cross examined about his previous convictions/bad character if:

1) info already admitted as SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE
2) accused-sought to establish his GOOD CHARACTER—in his defence
3) accused IMPUGNED character do the prosecution
4) accused given EVIDENCE AGAINST CO-ACCUSED

First exception can also be used to prove guilt of accused

Other 3 exceptions —used to ASSESS CREDIBILITY of the accused —

people (AG) v bond—-

adduced evidence of his own good character —cross examined about previous convictions—retrial because evidence can ONLY go to ACCUSED CREDIBILITY

Question 5

Similar fact evidence

Answer 5

Similar fact /misconduct evidence- admissible if probative value > prejudicial effect

Jones — s1f not applicable here because—- evidence introduced when prosecution were making their cases—NOT REVEALED FOR THE FIRST TIME

R v straffen case

Question 6

Accused sought to assert his own good character

Answer 6

R v Samuel

Accused charged with larceny

Put his character in issue —he found lost property before and returned it to its owner

Therefore, could be cross examined on his bad character

Similarly in r v Ferguson

—accused claimed — attended mass regularly —held to put his character in issue