Bad character evidence

Last updated

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 applicable in England and Wales, and to a lesser extent Scotland and Northern Ireland, implemented fundamental changes to the admissibility of evidence relating to character, in respect to defendants and others. The Act is far-reaching, providing for the admissibility of previous convictions in support of a propensity to commit like-offences and untruthfulness. [1] Common law rules in relation to the admissibility of bad character evidence have been abolished, with the existence of one exception. [2]

Contents

The legislation draws heavily on the Law Commission Paper No. 273, [3] with some deviations resulting from the Parliamentary debates as the Bill moved through Parliament.

Definition

Bad character evidence is evidence of, or a disposition towards misconduct; other than evidence which has to do with the alleged facts of the offense with which the defendant is charged or is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence. [4] Misconduct is defined as "the commission of an offence or other reprehensible behaviour". [5] Bad character in relation to the alleged facts offense itself has always been admissible for obvious reasons. The Act provides for different rules in relation to the bad character of defendants, and that of non-defendants. In assessing the probative value of evidence it is assumed to be true, unless there is material to suggest the contrary. [6]

Apart from evidence of previous convictions, other evidence, amounting to "reprehensible behaviour" is admissible. The Government stated the following during debate:

"Examples of where it might be appropriate to admit such evidence include circumstances where evidence on a number of charges being tried concurrently is cross-admissible in respect of the other charges.
It might also be appropriate to admit evidence relating to charges on which the defendant was acquitted, as I have already cited in the example of. [7] It would be unfortunate if an argument were to be accepted that, because a person has not actually been convicted of the offense, it cannot be said that the evidence shows that he has indeed committed such an offense and it is therefore excluded". [8]

Statutory Gateways

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides for seven statutory gateways. [9] Evidence of a defendant's bad character is admissible on if -

  1. all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,
  2. the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it,
  3. it is important explanatory evidence,
  4. it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution,
  5. it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,
  6. it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, or
  7. the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.

Exclusion of bad character evidence

The Criminal Justice Act does provide a specific provision for the exclusion of bad character evidence, [10] where it may be excluded if it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. Essentially, bad character evidence may be excluded on the grounds of unfairness. [8]

The language of the Criminal Justice Act mirrors that of section 78 PACE 1984, [11] with the difference of PACE stating that courts 'may' exclude evidence where its admission would be unfair, whilst the Criminal Justice Act states courts 'must' exclude such evidence. This may provide stronger protections for defendants where the language of the statute is imperative.

In addition to the statutory tests for exclusion of bad character evidence the power to exclude evidence under section 78 PACE 1984 [11] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is not affected by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provisions (House of Lords, Hansard, 19 November 2003, Col. 1988). Both provisions exist alongside one another.

Criticisms

Academic commentators have criticized the use of the phrase "reprehensible behavior" in section 112 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. [12] This language has not featured in any UK statute law before, [13] and as such its interpretation has led to some inconsistent case law, where courts are subjectively interpreting whether evidence qualifies as "reprehensible behavior" without clear precedent.

This language was introduced into the Act as it progressed through Parliament, with the original Law Commission Paper [3] instead proposing that a reasonable person test, commonly featured in law in England and Wales, be used. [13]

Notes and references

  1. ↑ "Section 103". Criminal Justice Act. Archived from the original on 30 September 2007. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  2. ↑ "Section 99(2)". Criminal Justice Act 2003. Archived from the original on 30 September 2007. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  3. 1 2 "Law Commission Paper No. 273" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  4. ↑ "Section 98". Criminal Justice Act 2003. Archived from the original on 23 October 2008.
  5. ↑ "Section 112(1)". Criminal Justice Act 2003. Archived from the original on 2 May 2007.
  6. ↑ "Section 109". Criminal Justice Act 2003. Archived from the original on 2 May 2007.
  7. ↑ "R v Z" . Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  8. 1 2 CrimeLine Training Limited (2011). "Welcome to CrimeLine Resources" (PDF). CrimeLine Resources. CrimeLine Training Limited. Retrieved 5 August 2012.
  9. ↑ "Section 101(1)". Criminal Justice Act 2003. Retrieved 16 May 2021.
  10. ↑ "Section 101(3)" Criminal Justice Act 2003. Retrieved 16 May 2021.
  11. 1 2 "Section 78" Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Retrieved 16 May 2021.
  12. ↑ Munday, Roderick (2005). "What constitutes 'other reprehensible behaviour' under the bad character provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003". Criminal Law Review: 24–43 – via Thomson Reuters.
  13. 1 2 Goudkamp, James (2008). "Bad character evidence and reprehensible behaviour". International Journal of Evidence & Proof. 12 (2): 116–140. doi:10.1350/ijep.2008.12.2.116. S2CID   144129224 – via Thomson Reuters.

Related Research Articles

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. A variation in civil law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

Mens rea is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.

A hybrid offence, dual offence, Crown option offence, dual procedure offence, offence triable either way, or wobbler is one of the special class offences in the common law jurisdictions where the case may be prosecuted either summarily or as indictment. In the United States, an alternative misdemeanor/felony offense lists both county jail and state prison as possible punishment, for example, theft. Similarly, a wobblette is a crime that can be charged either as a misdemeanor or an infraction, for example, violating COVID-19 safety precautions.

Character evidence is a term used in the law of evidence to describe any testimony or document submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the character or disposition of that person. In the United States, Federal Rule of Evidence 404 maps out its permissible and prohibited uses in trials. Three factors typically determine the admissibility of character evidence:

  1. the purpose the character evidence is being used for
  2. the form in which the character evidence is offered
  3. the type of proceeding in which the character evidence is offered

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

In the law of criminal evidence, a confession is a statement by a suspect in crime which is adverse to that person. Some secondary authorities, such as Black's Law Dictionary, define a confession in more narrow terms, e.g. as "a statement admitting or acknowledging all facts necessary for conviction of a crime," which would be distinct from a mere admission of certain facts that, if true, would still not, by themselves, satisfy all the elements of the offense. The equivalent in civil cases is a statement against interest.

In the law of evidence, similar fact evidence establishes the conditions under which factual evidence of past misconduct of accused can be admitted at trial for the purpose of inferring that the accused committed the misconduct at issue.

Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from an under-oath witness who is reciting an out-of-court statement, the content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence or cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behaviour. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim.

Possession of stolen goods Category of crime

Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has bought, been given, or acquired stolen goods.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 United Kingdom legislation

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is concerned with criminal justice and concentrates upon legal protection and assistance to victims of crime, particularly domestic violence. It also expands the provision for trials without a jury, brings in new rules for trials for causing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, and permits bailiffs to use force to enter homes.

The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.

English criminal law Legal system of England and Wales relating to crime

English criminal law concerns offences, their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales. Criminal conduct is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, has responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law, and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal. The fundamentals of a crime are a guilty act and a guilty mental state. The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that a defendant should have recognised or intended that they were acting wrongly, although in modern regulation a large number of offences relating to road traffic, environmental damage, financial services and corporations, create strict liability that can be proven simply by the guilty act.

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which makes significant changes in many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In particular, it changes the law relating to custodial sentences and the early release of prisoners to reduce prison overcrowding, which reached crisis levels in 2008. It also reduces the right of prison officers to take industrial action, and changed the law on the deportation of foreign criminals. It received royal assent on 8 May 2008, but most of its provisions came into force on various later dates. Many sections came into force on 14 July 2008.

Marital coercion was a defence to most crimes under English criminal law and under the criminal law of Northern Ireland. It is similar to duress. It was abolished in England and Wales by section 177 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which came into force on 13 May 2014. The abolition does not apply in relation to offences committed before that date.

The powers of the police in England and Wales are defined largely by statute law, with the main sources of power being the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Police Act 1996. This article covers the powers of police officers of territorial police forces only, but a police officer in one of the UK's special police forces can utilise extended jurisdiction powers outside of their normal jurisdiction in certain defined situations as set out in statute. In law, police powers are given to constables. All police officers in England and Wales are 'constables' in law whatever their rank. Certain police powers are also available to a limited extent to police community support officers and other non warranted positions such as police civilian investigators or designated detention officers employed by some police forces even though they are not constables.

Evidence Act 2006

The Evidence Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand that codifies the laws of evidence. When enacted, the Act drew together the common law and statutory provisions relating to evidence into one comprehensive scheme, replacing most of the previous evidence law on the admissibility and use of evidence in court proceedings.

Bail in the United Kingdom is the practice of releasing individuals from remand subject to certain conditions which are designed to enable criminal justice outcomes, primarily trials and police investigations, to be completed efficiently and effectively. The right to bail is guaranteed in a wide range of contexts but is not absolute. The legal systems of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and of Scotland each deal with bail in similar but distinct ways. Bail can be granted by the courts, the police and certain other criminal justice authorities including the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.