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


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

The court emphasized the necessity to avoid litigation that is satellite 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 issues the main topic of past beliefs. The parties had been reminded for the need certainly to look for contract.

When there is a dispute about past beliefs that cannot be settled by agreed facts, prosecutors should provide careful consideration to appropriate witness care that may include organizing aided by the authorities a witness care prepare with consideration being fond of unique measures applications. It may additionally be appropriate to possess respect to your hearsay conditions associated with Chapter 2 of component 11 for the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

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

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

A caution is with the capacity of appearing bad character. It could be the main topic of dispute into the in an identical way that a conviction can be disputed. In the case a care is disputed by an accused, the court will work out considerable care in admitting the caution as proof of bad character especially where in actuality the care had been accepted when you look at the lack of legal services. A conviction is considerably various to a care as well as the court will very carefully think about its abilities 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 character that is good of one who 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 are invested beneath the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Part 7(2)(a) of this 1974 Act expressly excludes criminal procedures through the procedure associated with rule that is general a individual whoever beliefs are invested will 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 open court up to an invested conviction with no authority regarding the judge which authority ought not to be provided with unless the passions of justice therefore require. Appropriately, instances when a credit card applicatoin is manufactured because of the prosecution to adduce bad character proof with regards to an invested conviction is going to be exemplary.

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 an individual other than the accused is admissible if and just if –

  1. It is necessary explanatory evidence,
  2. It offers significant probative value in reference to a matter which –
    • Is really a matter in problem into the procedures, and
    • Is of significant value into the context associated with situation all together, 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 instance in general is significant (section 100(2)). This subsection mirrors the supply in section 101(1)(c) plus it had been meant that the exact same test would be of application to defendants and non-defendants alike.

Part 100(3) for the Act directs the court, whenever evaluating the probative worth of the data when it comes to purposes of section 100(1)(b) to own reference to

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

The type and degree associated with similarities and dissimilarities between each of the alleged cases of misconduct;

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

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

Proof of a non-defendant’s bad character cannot be adduced without having the leave of the court unless the events agree. Nonetheless, when a judge has determined that the requirements for admissibility are met, there is absolutely no exclusionary discernment save for the exercise regarding the instance management abilities regulating, for instance, 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 satisfied or it really is into the interests of justice to take action.

This part relates to both witnesses and those maybe maybe not called to provide proof except where in actuality the problem is certainly one of credibility while the credibility of the non-witness will never ever be a matter in problem. The area also 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) (see R v S (Andrew) 2006 EWCA Crim 1303) nevertheless, such bad character proof will simply be admissible in case it is “of significant importance when you look at the context of this instance as a whole”.

A application that is successful the defence might provide the cornerstone for a credit card applicatoin when it comes to admission of defendant bad character under section 101(1)(g) associated with the 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 part 41 of this Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 where, upon the test 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 in the concept of bad character proof, the judge should be satisfied as to both certain requirements of section 100 and part 41.


The process when it comes to admissibility of bad character proof is governed by Part 20 regarding the 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 instances have actually stressed the necessity to offer information with regards to beliefs as well as other evidence of bad character in fun time.

A celebration desperate to adduce proof a defendant’s character that is bad 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 within the magistrates’ court, or
  2. Fourteen days following the defendant pleads simple within the Crown Court.

A celebration who objects to the admission for the character that is bad must connect with the court to look for the objection and serve the program no more than 2 weeks after solution associated with notice.

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

A court must provide known reasons for any decision to either allow or refuse the application form (R21.5). This requirement is imposed by part 110 associated with Act.

The court has energy, under R21.6 to alter what’s needed under this component associated with the CPR which includes an electric 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 a document that is public released 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 practice and law.