Seleziona una pagina

The court emphasized the necessity to avoid litigation that is satellite in specific the requirement to avoid…

The court emphasized the necessity to avoid satellite litigation and in specific the requirement to avoid, if possible, the re-calling of witnesses to offer proof about things the main topic of past beliefs. The events had been reminded associated with 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 towards the hearsay conditions regarding the Chapter 2 of component 11 for the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Part 108 regarding the Act limits the admissibility of proof of past convictions as bad character proof in which the accused is faced with offences speculated to were committed by them when aged 21 years or higher and also the previous conviction or beliefs were for offences committed ahead of the chronilogical age of 14 to instances when

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

A caution is with the capacity of appearing bad character. It could be the topic of dispute into the in an identical way that a conviction might be disputed. In case a care is disputed by the accused, the court will work out considerable care in admitting the caution as proof of bad character specially where in actuality the care ended up being accepted into the lack of legal counsel. A conviction is somewhat various to a care while 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 influence the good character of the one 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 very consideration that is careful searching for admission of beliefs which are invested beneath the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Part 7(2)(a) of this 1974 Act expressly excludes criminal procedures through the procedure regarding the basic guideline that an individual whoever beliefs are invested is usually to be addressed as an individual of great character. Nonetheless, some security is afforded up to a defendant by Criminal Practice Direction V, 21A. 3 which provides that no body should refer in available court up to a spent conviction with no authority of this judge which authority ought not to get unless the passions of justice therefore require. Correctly, instances when a software is manufactured because of the prosecution to adduce bad character proof pertaining to an invested conviction would be excellent.

Bad Character of Non-Defendants

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

  1. It is necessary explanatory evidence,
  2. This has significant probative value in reference to a matter which –
    • Is a matter in problem when you look at the procedures, and
    • Is of significant value when you look at the context regarding the instance all together, or
  3. All events towards the proceedings accept the data being admissible.

Proof is very important explanatory evidence if, without one, the court or jury would believe it is impossible or hard precisely to comprehend other proof in case and its own value for comprehending the situation in general is significant (section 100(2)). 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.

Part 100(3) associated with 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 activities, or any other items, to that the proof applies;
  2. Whenever those activities or things are purported 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 alleged cases of misconduct;

  1. Where –
    • Evidence is proof of a person’s misconduct,
    • It’s advocated that see your face can be accountable for the misconduct charged, and
    • The identity of the individual accountable for the misconduct charged is disputed

The degree to that your proof shows or tends to exhibit that the exact same individual had been accountable each and every time.

Proof of a non-defendant’s character that is bad be adduced with no leave for the court unless the events agree. Nonetheless, when a judge has determined that the requirements for admissibility are met, there is absolutely no exclusionary discretion save for the workout associated with the situation administration capabilities 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 whenever one or both of one other gateways are pleased or it’s when you look at the passions of justice to do this.

This area relates to both witnesses and people maybe perhaps maybe not called to provide proof except where in actuality the problem is regarded as credibility since the credibility of the non-witness will never be a matter in problem. The area additionally covers those people who are deceased.

The creditworthiness of a witness is really a “matter in problem within the procedures” for the purposes of section 100(1 b that is)( (see R v S (Andrew) 2006 EWCA Crim 1303) nonetheless, such bad character evidence will simply be admissible in case it is “of significant value into the context for the instance as a whole”.

A successful application by the defence may possibly provide the foundation for a software when it comes to admission of defendant bad character under section 101(1)(g) regarding 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 task for the admissibility of bad character proof is governed by Part 20 associated with Criminal Procedure Rules 2015. The significance of complying using the rules governing procedure had been stressed in R v Bovell; R v Dowds 2005 EWCA Crim 1091 and subsequent instances have actually stressed the requirement to offer information with regards to beliefs along with other proof of bad character in good time.

A celebration wanting to adduce proof of a defendant’s bad character must serve notice prior to R21.4 for the CPR from the court officer and every other celebration:

  1. 28 times following the defendant pleads not liable into the magistrates’ court, or
  2. 2 weeks following the defendant pleads not liable within the Crown Court.

An event whom objects to your admission of this character that is bad must connect with the court to look for the objection and provide the applying no more than 2 weeks after solution of this notice.

Notice must certanly be written by a defendant, either orally or perhaps in composing, of an intention to adduce proof his very 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 application form (R21.5). This requirement is imposed by area 110 of this Act.

The court has energy, under R21.6 to alter what’s needed under this Part associated with CPR including an electric to dispense with a requirement for notice. Any celebration looking for an expansion must use whenever serving the program and give an explanation for wait.


These could 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, released by 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’re making choices about cases. It really is frequently updated to mirror alterations in practice and law.