The court emphasized the requirement to avoid satellite litigation and in specific the requirement to avoid…

The court emphasized the requirement to avoid satellite litigation and in specific the requirement to avoid…

The court emphasized the necessity to avoid litigation that is satellite in specific the requirement to avoid, if possible, the re-calling of witnesses to provide proof about matters the topic of past convictions. The events had been reminded associated with the need certainly to look for contract.

A witness care plan with consideration being given to special measures applications if there is a dispute about previous convictions that cannot be resolved by agreed facts, prosecutors should give very careful consideration to appropriate witness care which will include arranging with the police. It might additionally be appropriate to own respect to your hearsay conditions associated with the Chapter 2 of component 11 regarding the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Area 108 of this Act limits the admissibility of proof of past beliefs as bad character proof in which the accused is faced with offences speculated to are committed by them whenever aged 21 years or higher and also the conviction that is previous beliefs had been for offences committed ahead of the chronilogical age of 14 to instances when

  1. Both regarding the offences are triable only on indictment, and
  2. The court is pleased that the passions of justice need the data become admissible.

A care can perform demonstrating character that is bad. It may be the main topic of dispute when you look at the same manner that a conviction can be disputed. A caution is disputed by an accused, the court will exercise considerable care in admitting the caution as evidence of bad character particularly where the caution was accepted in the absence of legal advice in the event. A conviction is notably different to a care and also the court will very carefully give consideration to its capabilities of exclusion under section 101(3) – R v Olu 2010 EWCA Crim 2975.

A Penalty Notice doesn’t include an admission of shame and will not impact the good character of the individual whom takes one – see R v Gore and Maher 2009 EWCA Crim 1424. They have been consequently inadmissible as proof of bad character (R v Hamer 2010 EWCA Crim 2053).

Prosecutors should offer extremely consideration to looking for admission of beliefs which are invested beneath the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Part 7(2)(a) for the 1974 Act expressly excludes criminal procedures through the procedure associated with the rule that is general a person whoever beliefs are spent will be addressed as an individual of good character. Nonetheless, some security is afforded to a defendant by Criminal Practice Direction V, 21A. 3 which gives that no-one should refer in available court up to an invested conviction minus the authority of this judge which authority must not be provided with unless the passions of justice so require. Properly, cases where a credit card applicatoin is created by the prosecution to adduce character that is bad with regards to a invested conviction are going to be excellent.

Bad Character of Non-Defendants

The admissibility of bad character proof of non-defendants is governed by area 100 of this Act. This gives that such proof of someone aside from the accused is admissible if and only if –

  1. It is necessary explanatory evidence,
  2. It offers significant value that is probative regards to a matter which –
    • Is really a matter in issue into the procedures, and
    • Is of significant value within the context associated with the situation all together, or
  3. All parties into the procedures consent to the data being admissible.

Proof is essential explanatory evidence if, it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case and its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial (section 100(2)) without it, the court or jury would find. This subsection mirrors the supply in section 101(1)(c) plus it ended up being meant that the exact same test would be of application to defendants and non-defendants alike.

Area 100(3) associated with the Act directs the court, whenever evaluating the probative value of the data when it comes to purposes of section 100(1)(b) to possess reference to

  1. The nature and quantity of activities, or any other items, to that the proof applies;
  2. Whenever those activities or things are speculated to have occurred or existed;
  3. Where –
    • The data is proof of a person’s misconduct, and
    • It’s advocated that the data has probative value by explanation of similarity between that misconduct as well as other misconduct that is alleged

The extent and nature for the similarities and dissimilarities between all the so-called cases of misconduct;

  1. Where –
    • The data is proof of a person’s misconduct,
    • It’s advocated that see your face normally accountable for the misconduct charged, and
    • The identification of the individual in charge of the misconduct charged is disputed

The degree to that your proof shows or tends to demonstrate that the exact same individual ended up being accountable each and every time.

Proof of a non-defendant’s character that is bad be adduced with no leave associated with the court unless the events agree. But, when a judge has determined that the requirements for admissibility are met, there isn’t any exclusionary discernment save for the workout regarding the instance management abilities regulating, for instance, way and amount of cross examination (R v Brewster and Cromwell 2010 EWCA Crim 1194). Prosecutors should just consent to the admission of bad character when one or each of one other gateways are pleased or it really is into the passions of justice to take action.

This part pertains to both witnesses and people perhaps perhaps not called to provide proof except where in fact the problem is certainly one of credibility while the credibility of the non-witness will never ever be a matter in problem. The area additionally covers those people who are deceased.

The creditworthiness of the witness is really a “matter in problem when you look at the procedures” for the purposes of section 100(1 b that is)( (see R v S (Andrew) 2006 EWCA Crim 1303) but, such bad foot tease character proof is only going to be admissible when it is “of significant importance within the context regarding the situation as a whole”.

A application that is successful the defence might provide the cornerstone for a credit card applicatoin for the admission of defendant bad character under section 101(1)(g) of this Act ( an assault on another person’s character) susceptible to the court’s discretion to exclude under section 101(3).

Where cross assessment is fixed by statute, such as for instance part 41 for the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 where, upon the trial of the intimate offense, the defence seek to get across examine the complainant as to intimate behavior or even to adduce proof on that matter, in the event that matter falls inside the concept of bad character evidence, the judge should be pleased as to both certain requirements of area 100 and area 41.


The task for the admissibility of bad character proof is governed by role 20 associated with Criminal Procedure Rules 2015. The necessity of complying with all the guidelines governing procedure had been stressed in R v Bovell; R v Dowds 2005 EWCA Crim 1091 and subsequent instances have actually stressed the necessity to offer information in terms of beliefs along with other proof bad character in good time.

A celebration desperate to adduce proof of a defendant’s character that is bad serve notice prior to R21.4 associated with CPR regarding the court officer and every other party:

  1. 28 times following the defendant pleads not liable into the magistrates’ court, or
  2. Week or two following the defendant pleads not liable when you look at the Crown Court.

A celebration whom objects to your admission associated with the bad character proof must connect with the court to look for the objection and provide the applying no more than 2 weeks after solution for the notice.

Notice must certanly be provided by a defendant, either orally or in composing, of a intention to adduce proof of their own character that is bad quickly as fairly practicable any in every occasion prior to the proof is introduced (R21.8).

A court must offer known reasons for any choice to either allow or refuse the applying (R21.5). This requirement is imposed by area 110 of this Act.

The court has power, under R21.6 to alter certain requirements under this component associated with the CPR including an electrical to dispense with a requirement for notice. Any celebration looking for an expansion must apply whenever serving the application form and give an explanation for wait.


These can be accessed when you look at the Forms area of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is really a general public document, given because of the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out of the general concepts Crown Prosecutors should follow if they make choices on instances.

Prosecution guidance

This guidance assists our prosecutors when they’re making choices about instances. It’s frequently updated to mirror alterations in legislation and training.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *