One of the most popular tenets of English legislation is that a person must not be judged strenuously by reference to the great specter of his previous life. This kind of very well proven tradition has led to the oft-cited rule of evidence rules which forbids reliance after an individuals persona or evidence of other samples of misbehavior if they are proffered to corroborate a person acted in a way befitting his character around the occasion showcased. English rules has dealt with the question of the accuseds character for centuries and a abundant wealth of authority exists to attest to this kind of. This article endeavors to summarise the old principles as well as the fresh rules regulating the entrance or non-admission of bad character proof in felony trials.
The admissibility of evidence of the previous wrong doings of the accused in a criminal trial has for over 100 years been governed with a complex wool of law and prevalent law. This kind of assortment of rules under was later to gain statutory acknowledgement and a thorough statement for the law of evidence about character evidence appeared inside the Criminal Proof Act 1898 whose section 1 generally dealt with the competence of witnesses in criminal circumstances. The way regarding non-party witnesses and defendant observe was substantially different while using latter becoming essentially exclusionary whilst the previous was generally inclusionary.
A Non-Defendant Witnesses
There have been two reasons to adduce unhealthy character of non-party witnesses: first, to undermine their very own credibility and suggest that they must not always be believed about oath. Secondly, because it was directly strongly related a fact in issue with the trial, for instance , to claim that the so-called victim within an assault case is actually the aggressor, because of his earlier record of violence. The positioning with regard to trustworthiness was summarised in the libel case of Hobbs sixth is v Tinling in which the Court of Criminal Charm suggested that the witness could possibly be asked virtually any question about his figure or past conduct from where the court docket could infer that having been not worth belief, not just a credible person. This resulted in he could be mentioned previous vérité and virtually any reprehensible associations or lifestyle. Thus, for common legislation, and as opposed to the comparatively protected location of an charged person supplying evidence, there are few legal constraints in cross-examining nonparty witnesses in a criminal trial, though, since 1976, complainants in lovemaking cases have gotten special lawful protection in relation to their sexual histories. Several additional safeguard was offered by the 75 Practice Course, Crime: Spent Convictions. The Practice Path provided that spent convictions ought to only be reported in a legal trial with leave from the presiding assess. This should only be given in case the interests of justice and so require so that adducing it might not end up being reasonably avoided.
Nevertheless , despite genuine interventions to safeguard nonparty witnesses, the law was largely inclusionary of all awful character facts and could, therefore , lead to probably unfair effects. The position was radically diverse with regard to accused witnesses.
Under section 1 of the Lawbreaker Evidence Act 1898, a person billed and known as as a observe under the Action could not become compelled to reply to any query tending to present that he could be of bad character or that he previously committed or perhaps had been found guilty of some other offense besides that with which he previously been charged. This injunction against the solicitation of negative character data could be lost if the falsely accused or by his advocate asked concerns of the witnesses for the prosecution expecting to to establishing his very own good personality or in the event that he provided evidence of his own good character.
Thus, the scheme presented to by the Felony Evidence Act 1898 compelled the offender to answer queries relating to his bad figure in possibly of two situations: first of all, where the protection elicited proof that the accused is of very good character, and secondly, where defense assaulted the character of prosecution witnesses. The evidence of character, whether adduced by prosecution or maybe the defense proceeded to go towards demonstrating the possibility that the accused had acted consistently with it during the case in point. The bad character data is meant showing the tendency and disposition in the mans brain towards carrying out or abstaining from committing the class of crime with which he stands charged¦ As a result, by adducing evidence of very good character the defendant places his figure in concern, notwithstanding if he will take the see stand or not. But since he chooses to give facts, the bad persona evidence likewise goes to his credibility being a witness. The most crucial feature with the provision is that the prosecution was not in liberty to cross-examine the defendant regarding his figure unless this individual intentionally plonked away the shield offered by the law.
The fundamental justification intended for the exemption to the injunction against adducing character proof was explained in Maxwell v Movie director of Public Prosecutions exactly where Viscount Sankey LC mentioned that in the event the accused or perhaps his witnesses give proof of his individual good personality, for the purpose of demonstrating that it is not likely that he committed the offense billed, he raises by way of defense an issue about his good character so that he may fairly be cross-examined to show the contrary.
It must be mentioned that the accuseds character is indivisible. As a result in 3rd there’s r v Winfield Lord Humphreys held there is no such thing known to our treatment as adding half a prisoners character in issue and leaving your other half. Hence, once the offender put his / her character in issue, then he or she opened the floodgates regarding which will aspects of her or his character could possibly be adduced by prosecution. Although it is logical and good to proffer evidence showing prior croyance for fraudulence where the offender has placed in evidence information tending to show that a person of his or her character was unlikely to commit the fraud for which he continues to be charged, adducing evidence that is intended to demonstrate that having been convicted of assault seems to be somewhat doubtful and could bring about unjust and unfair outcomes.
The case of 3rd there’s r v Winfield provides a extremely good model of these concerns. In that case, the defendant was charged and found guilty of indecent assault against a lady. In the defense, this individual called a observe to give data on his exemplary behavior toward women and thus put his character in issue. The prosecution would not hesitate to cross-examine him on a before conviction pertaining to theft and the Court of Appeal seems to have endorsed the cross-examination because the conviction was quashed on such basis as the insufficiency of corroborative evidence and not for the improper entrance of proof relating to the prior conviction intended for theft.
It is apparent from the above analysis that the inexhaustible nature in the evidence which the prosecution can elicit after the accused experienced put his character in issue may prejudice the defendants reasonable trial. To avoid this, the courts designed rules where they worked out discretion whether to allow evidence of bad figure whose probative value was outweighed by simply its nefasta character. In Selvey versus Director of Public Prosecutions, the question came about directly perhaps the trial assess had a discernment under section 1(f)(ii) to preclude the prosecution by cross-examining the accused regarding certain before convictions as soon as the shield is lost. It had been held that such discretion does are present and that it ought to be exercised in which it would be improperly prejudicial to let all prior convictions being put to the accused.
The position about the safeguarding of fairness was bolstered by the issuance by Court of Appeal of a Practice Path which advised that mention of the spent vérité should be averted wherever possible in criminal legal courts, even though the Treatment of Offenders Act on that this Direction was based would not specifically prolong to lawbreaker proceedings.
However , the cases continued to show diverse standards becoming adopted in cases of previous vérité and poor character proof generally and so the Law Commission was requested to undertake a comprehensive review of the law and make proposals which will would inspire fairness in criminal trials. The result was the Criminal Proper rights Act the year 2003.
The new rules
The Criminal Proper rights Act 2003 brings in revolutionary changes by abolishing the regular law rules governing the admissibility proof of bad character in felony trials. The Criminal Proper rights Act the year 2003 introduces very radical becomes the law in relation to the entrance of proof of the accuseds bad figure. This properly eliminates the principles which the Courtroom in Selvey v Overseer of Community Prosecutions and R versus Dunkley sensed were such an intrinsic a part of English rules that they cannot be modified.
Since the abolition likewise affects cases which determine what constitutes bad figure, section 98 attempts to delineate the actual up a persons bad figure. The section states that evidence of poor character comprises evidence of misconduct or personality towards misconduct. The supply excludes from its ambit of bad persona evidence relating to any misconduct in connection with the investigation or perhaps prosecution in the offense. In addition, it excludes these kinds of evidence because has to do with the alleged specifics of the offense with which the defendant can be charged. The rationale for this exemption is that this kind of evidence is definitely admissible at the least as part of the material facts of the case and could have been allowed even underneath the old rules relating to the admissibility of bad character evidence. Although section 98 does not define what temperament means, it truly is clear the fact that provision widens the tour of adoptable bad personality evidence as it is not restricted to evidence of general reputation as was authoritatively stated in 3rd there’s r v Rowton.
A Non-defendant witnesses
Section 75 allows non-defendants bad persona to be adduced in 3 separate situations. Firstly, it will be admitted where both parties accept to the evidence getting adduced. Secondly, it can be admitted if it is significant explanatory proof and finally, underneath section 100(1)(b), such facts can also be adduced if it provides substantial probative value pertaining to something which can be both an issue in a significant the actions, and is of substantial importance in the framework of the case overall. In the latter two gateways, bad personality evidence might be adduced with the keep of courtroom.
As a result, the new statutory scheme does away with the almost carte blanche approach that was allowable under the outdated rules. While the the courtroom did not have much control over the participation of non-defendants bad personality evidence, the brand new rules put the court in the middle of the problems by demanding them to offer leave unless of course the attractivity of such evidence was already agreed.
Section tips introduces even more radical improvements. Whilst below section 1(f)(ii) of the Legal Evidence Work 1898, the defendant needed to put his character in issue before being cross-examined on it, section 101 dispenses with this kind of requirement and allows the defense to introduce bad character facts, not only after cross-examination yet even through the giving of evidence in primary as long as this kind of evidence fulfills the vindicability requirements underneath section information.
Based on the provisions of section information, bad personality evidence is definitely admissible in a of the next cases:
- Where the protection and the criminal prosecution agree to the evidence being adoptable
- Evidence is adduced by the accused himself or is given in answer to a question asked by simply him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it
- The evidence has significant explanatory benefit
- It has substantial probative benefit in relation to a significant matter in issue involving the defendant and a co-defendant
- It is highly relevant to an important matter in concern between the defendant and the prosecution
- If the defendant has made a great attack against another persons character
- In case it is evidence to improve a false impression given by the defendant
These categories of participation are even more explained by the provisions of sections 102-106 which amplify the instances of admissibility thorough above. It really is clear these grounds of admissibility are generally not exclusionary of every other and it is possible for evidence of bad figure to be adduced under one or more of the prescribed grounds.
With regard to the present discussion, it can be noteworthy which the conditions intended for loss of the shield by the defendant under the first limb of section 1(f)(ii) had been preserved by the Criminal Proper rights Act 2003 under section 101(b). Therefore, the defendant is still while liable to cross-examination under the new rules as he was under the Criminal Data Act 1898.
Nevertheless , the Felony Justice Take action introduces an additional element. Section 101(b) must be read alongside the provisions of sections 101(f) and 105 which allow the prosecution to lead evidence intended to correct an incorrect impression. As a result, whilst within the Criminal Facts Act, it had been specifically required that the accused put their character in issue first before he dropped the defend, under the new rules mere assertion of circumstances which will give a false impression may lead to the defendant staying cross-examined in the bad personality. Although the proof allowed beneath these conditions is limited to correcting the false impression made by the defendants assertion, it truly is clear that he may still lose the shield not having put his character in issue although merely because he created a false impression.
One other fundamental alter introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is that this shakes the principle that character is indivisible since under section 101 poor character evidence is only adoptable only with regard to the grounds in depth under that section. The loss of a protect does not supply the prosecution 1 carte blanche to proffer bad personality evidence without restriction. If the prosecution oversteps the restrictions and the court docket is of the opinion evidence will bias the defendants right to a good trial, it has discretion under section 101(3) to refuse the evidence. Therefore, much to Lord Humphreys dismay, it will be possible under the fresh law to set half the defendants persona.
The Criminal Proper rights Act 2003 makes important changes to legislation relating to the admissibility of bad personality evidence in relation to both accused and non-defendant witnesses. Besides detailing the reasons under which usually bad personality evidence may be proffered, the law also features certainty in the principles which in turn govern this area of the rules by abolishing the common law rules some of which were complicated and lacked precision. Even though in some areas the issues that may show up for inclusiveness have been bigger, these improvements are served with fairly far-reaching procedural and substantive safe guards to ensure that evidence submitted has substantial probative value rather than its prejudicial character. The principles cannot absolutely be personified simply to be exclusionary or perhaps inclusionary because they combine the two elements. Yet , the new guidelines should support secure the defendants right to a fair trial as provided within the Human Legal rights Act 1998 as well as the Western Convention upon Human Legal rights. It is difficult at this stage to foresee how the legal courts will translate and apply the new provisions. Obviously, one hopes that the courts will not likely produce case law that complicates the already intensive rules underneath the Criminal Rights Act 2003.Get your custom Essay