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 particular the requirement to avoid, if possible, the re-calling of witnesses to offer proof about issues the main topic of past beliefs. The parties had been reminded associated with need certainly to seek contract.

If you have a dispute about past beliefs that simply cannot be solved by agreed facts, prosecutors should provide cautious consideration to appropriate witness care that will consist of organizing with all the authorities a witness care plan with consideration being fond of unique measures applications. It might additionally be appropriate to possess respect to your hearsay conditions of this Chapter 2 of component 11 of this 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 have now been committed by them whenever aged 21 years or higher and also the past conviction or beliefs had been for offences committed prior to the chronilogical age of 14 to instances when

  1. Each for the offences are triable only on indictment, and
  2. The court is pleased that the passions of justice need evidence become admissible.

A care can perform demonstrating character that is bad. It could be the subject of dispute into the way that is same a conviction could 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 dramatically various to a care as well as the court will consider its powers carefully of exclusion under section 101(3) – R v Olu 2010 EWCA Crim 2975.

A Penalty Notice will not contain an admission of guilt and will not impact the character that is good of individual whom takes one – see R v Gore and Maher 2009 EWCA Crim 1424. They truly are consequently inadmissible as proof of bad character (R v Hamer 2010 EWCA Crim 2053).

Prosecutors should provide really consideration to looking for admission of beliefs which can be invested beneath the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Part 7(2)(a) for the 1974 Act expressly excludes criminal procedures through the procedure of this basic guideline that a person whoever beliefs are invested is usually to be addressed as an individual of great character. Nevertheless, some security is afforded to a defendant by Criminal Practice Direction V, 21A. 3 which supplies that no body should refer in available court to an invested conviction with no authority associated with the judge which authority must not be provided with unless the passions of justice therefore require. Properly, instances when a software is created by the prosecution to adduce character that is bad in terms of a invested conviction are going to be excellent.

Bad Character of Non-Defendants

The admissibility of bad character proof non-defendants is governed by area 100 associated with Act. This allows that such proof of an individual apart from the accused is admissible if and just if –

  1. It’s important explanatory evidence,
  2. It offers significant probative value in regards to a matter which –
    • Is a matter in problem into the procedures, and
    • Is of significant importance within the context of this instance all together, or
  3. All events towards the procedures accept the data being admissible.

Proof is very important 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) and it also had been meant that the test that is same be of application to defendants and non-defendants alike.

Section 100(3) associated with the Act directs the court, whenever evaluating the probative value of the data for the purposes of section 100(1 b that is)( to own reference to

  1. The nature and quantity of occasions, or other activities, to that your evidence applies;
  2. Whenever those occasions or things are purported to have existed or happened;
  3. Where –
    • Evidence is proof of a person’s misconduct, and
    • It’s advocated that the data has probative value by reason of similarity between that misconduct as well as other so-called misconduct

The type and degree for the similarities and dissimilarities between each one of the so-called cases of misconduct;

  1. Where –
    • Evidence is proof of a person’s misconduct,
    • It’s advocated that that individual normally in charge of the misconduct charged, and
    • The identification of the individual in charge of the misconduct charged is disputed

The level to that your proof shows or tends to exhibit that the person that is same accountable each and every time.

Proof of a non-defendant’s character that is bad be adduced without having the leave regarding the court unless the events agree. But, as soon as a judge has determined that the requirements for admissibility are met, there is absolutely no discretion that is exclusionary for the workout regarding the situation administration abilities regulating, for instance, way and period 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 within the passions of justice to do this.

This area relates to both witnesses and people maybe maybe not called to offer evidence except where in fact the problem is certainly one of credibility due to the fact credibility of a non-witness will be a matter never in problem. The section additionally covers those people who are deceased.

The creditworthiness of the witness is a “matter in issue into the procedures” for the purposes of section 100(1 b that is)( (see R v S (Andrew) 2006 EWCA Crim 1303) nevertheless, such bad character proof is only going to be admissible if it’s “of significant value into the context regarding the instance as a whole”.

A application that is successful the defence may possibly provide the foundation for a software for the admission of defendant bad character under section 101(1)(g) for the Act ( an assault on another person’s character) susceptible to the court’s discernment to exclude under section 101(3).

The defence seek to cross examine the complainant as to sexual behaviour or to adduce evidence on that matter, if the matter falls within the definition of bad character evidence, the judge will have to be satisfied as to both the requirements of section 100 and section 41 in cases where cross examination is restricted by statute, such as section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 where, upon the trial of a sexual offence.


The process when it comes to admissibility of bad character proof is governed by role 20 regarding the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015. The necessity of complying aided by the guidelines governing procedure had been stressed in R v Bovell; R v Dowds 2005 EWCA Crim 1091 and subsequent situations have actually stressed the requirement to offer information pertaining to beliefs along with other proof bad character in good time.

A celebration wanting to adduce proof of a defendant’s character that is bad serve notice according to R21.4 for the CPR regarding the court officer and every other celebration:

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

A celebration whom objects towards the admission associated with the character that is bad must connect with the court to look for the objection and provide the applying less than 2 weeks after solution of this notice.

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

A court must offer grounds for any choice to either allow or refuse the application form (R21.5). This requirement is imposed by area 110 for the Act.

The court has energy, under R21.6 to alter certain requirements under this right part for the CPR including an electrical to dispense with a requirement for notice. Any celebration searching for an expansion must use whenever serving the program 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 just a document that is public released because of the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out of the general concepts Crown Prosecutors should follow once they make choices on situations.

Prosecution guidance

This guidance assists our prosecutors when they are making choices about instances. It really is frequently updated to mirror alterations in law and training.

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *