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

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

The court emphasized the requirement to avoid litigation that is satellite in specific the necessity to avoid, if possible, the re-calling of witnesses to provide proof about things the topic of past convictions. The events had been reminded of this want to look for agreement.

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 may additionally be appropriate to possess respect towards the hearsay conditions associated with the Chapter 2 of component 11 regarding the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Part 108 of this Act limits the admissibility of evidence of past beliefs as bad character proof where in actuality the accused is faced with offences speculated to have now been committed by them whenever aged 21 years or higher and also the conviction that is previous beliefs had been for offences committed prior to the chronilogical age of 14 to instances when

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

A care can perform showing character that is bad. It may be the topic 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 notably different to a care and also the court will consider its powers carefully of exclusion under section 101(3) – R v Olu 2010 EWCA Crim 2975.

A Penalty Notice doesn’t contain an admission of guilt and doesn’t influence the good character of the individual whom takes one – see R v Gore and Maher 2009 EWCA Crim 1424. These are typically consequently inadmissible as proof of bad character (R v Hamer 2010 EWCA Crim 2053).

Prosecutors should provide really consideration that is careful searching for admission of beliefs which can be invested beneath the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Part 7(2)(a) associated with 1974 Act expressly excludes criminal procedures through the procedure associated with the rule that is general an individual whoever beliefs are invested is usually to be treated as an individual of great character. But, some security is afforded up to a defendant by Criminal Practice Direction V, 21A. 3 which gives that no-one should refer in available court to an invested conviction with no authority associated with judge which authority must not get unless the interests of justice therefore require. Consequently, instances when a credit card applicatoin is manufactured by the prosecution to adduce bad character proof pertaining to an invested conviction are going to be exemplary.

Bad Character of Non-Defendants

The admissibility of bad character proof of non-defendants is governed by area 100 associated with 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. It’s significant value that is probative regards to a matter which –
    • Is just a matter in problem into the procedures, and
    • Is of significant value into the context of this full instance in general, or
  3. All events to your procedures consent to the data being admissible.

Proof is very important explanatory evidence if, without one, the court or jury would think it is impossible or hard precisely to know other proof in case as well as its value for knowing the situation all together is significant (section 100(2)). This subsection mirrors the supply in section 101(1)(c) plus it had been meant that the test that is same be of application to defendants and non-defendants alike.

Area 100(3) for the Act directs the court, when evaluating the probative value of the data for the purposes of section 100(1)(b) to possess respect to

  1. The nature and quantity of occasions, or other things, to that the proof relates;
  2. Whenever those activities or things are speculated to have existed or happened;
  3. Where –
    • Evidence is proof of a person’s misconduct, and
    • It is strongly recommended 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 associated with 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 person can also be in charge of the misconduct charged, and
    • The identification of the individual in charge of the misconduct charged is disputed

The degree to that the proof shows or tends to exhibit that the exact same individual ended up being accountable every time.

Proof of a non-defendant’s character that is bad be adduced with no leave of this court unless the events agree. Nonetheless, 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 instance administration capabilities regulating, as an example, way and amount of cross assessment (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 into the passions of justice to take action.

This area relates to both witnesses and people maybe maybe not called to offer proof except in which the problem is regarded as credibility since the credibility of a non-witness will not be a matter in problem. The part additionally covers those people who are deceased.

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

A effective application by the defence may possibly provide the cornerstone for a credit card applicatoin when it comes to 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 discernment to exclude under section 101(3).

Where cross assessment is fixed by statute, such as for instance area 41 associated with the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 where, upon the test of a 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 in the concept of bad character proof, the judge must be pleased as to both certain requirements of part 100 and part 41.


The process when it comes to admissibility of bad character proof is governed by role 20 associated with Criminal Procedure Rules 2015. The significance of complying because of the guidelines procedure that is governing stressed in R v Bovell; R v Dowds 2005 EWCA Crim 1091 and subsequent situations have actually stressed the necessity to offer information in terms of convictions as well as other proof of bad character in good time.

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

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

A celebration who objects to your admission associated with the bad character proof must connect with the court to look for the objection and provide the applying less than 2 weeks after solution regarding the notice.

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

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

The court has energy, under R21.6 to vary certain requirements under this right part associated with CPR including an electric to dispense with a necessity for notice. Any celebration looking for an extension must use whenever serving the program and give an explanation for wait.


These can be accessed in 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 given by the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out of the general concepts Crown Prosecutors should follow once they make choices on instances.

Prosecution guidance

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

Leave a Reply

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