Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Evidence of Character (Defendant Good Character (Defendant routinely…

- - - - The wider the scope of BC evidence, the more Defendants are protected as the harder it is to get the evidence to court
    - - s98 CJA 203 - Evidence of, or of a disposition towards misconduct on his part
      - S112 CJA 2003 - misconduct means the commission of an offence or other reprehensible behaviour
      - Previous convictions are most commonly used to suggest misconduct or a disposition towards misconduct
        
        However, some evidence other than convictions can qualify as bad character evidence
        
        Cautions
        
        Evidence of an offence to which the defendant was acquitted
        
        Any other evidence of reprehensible behaviour
        
        However, s98 excludes some evidence of character from the new regime and allows it to be introduced as evidence
        
        Anything that has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged
        
        Evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the offence
  - - - Evidence is important explanatory evidence if:
        
        Without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case
        
        Its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial
    - - s103(1) - Matters in issue between P and D can include:
        
        Question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind which he is charged
        
        Can be established through evidence of previous convictions
        
        Offence of the same description as the one which he is charged with
        
        Offence of the same category as the one which he is charged with under CJA 2003 (Categories of Offences) Order 2004
        
        Offences under Theft Acts 1968, 1978
        
        Range of offences involving sexual activity with minors
        
        s108 - If the defendant is over 21 and his previous offence was committed under 14, then it can only be introduced as evidence if both the previous and present offences are indictable
        
        Criteria for admitting evidence of propensity under Hanson [2005]
        
        Not all evidence of propensity will be admitted, and the judge must exercise discretion in weighing up Probative value and Prejudicial effect
        
        Three questions should be considered when considering character evidence for propensity
        
        Does that propensity make it more likely that the defendant committed the offence charged?
        
        Is it unjust to rely on convictions, and in any event, will the proceedings be unfair if admitted?
        
        Does the history of convictions establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged?
        
        Factors the judge should consider in assessing probative value
        
        How strong is the similarity between the shared offences
        
        Gravity of the past and present offences
        
        How long ago was the event?
        
        Number of previous events
        
        Question whether the defendant has the propensity to be untruthful
        
        Hanson (2005) outlined some kinds of prior misconduct which could be regarded as relevent
        
        Convictions of perjury or other offences including false representations
        
        Other evidence of lying to police or the court
        
        Dishonesty can but will not always show untruthfulness (Fysh 2005)
        
        To question D's propensity to be untruthful, the question of truthfulness must be relevant to the issues to be admissible s103(1)(b)
      - Judge must not admit evidence under this gateway if on the application of the defendant, it appears that to admit it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to be admitted s101(3)
        
        Judge should also warn the jury about placing too much reliance on previous convictions rather than the facts at hand - Mitchell (2016)
    - - Under this gateway, BC evidence is only admissible if it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between D and Co-D
        
        D may wish to argue that Co-D is either to blame or not a credible witness
      - Under this gateway, the trial judge has no discretion to protect co-d's from each other and can only determine probative value
    - - The prosecution can supply evidence of BC to correct a false impression of good behaviour by D, as long as it goes no further than is necessary to correct it S105(6), including:
        
        Implied as well as express assertions
        
        Misleading as well as false impressions
        
        Impressions from conduct as well as words
    - - This section means that P can adduce BC evidence if D tries to say that another person has:
        
        Committed an offence
        
        Behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a reprehensible way
      - D's attack can take place outside of the courtroom and does not have to be at trial, but evidence must be shown to the fact-finder
      - Judicial discretion to exclude evidence if would have a great adverse effect...