Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2005] All ER (D) 163 (Nov)
Neutral Citation: [2005] EWCA Crim 2866
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Judge:

Kennedy LJ, Bell and Dobbs JJ

Representation Simon James (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant in the first appeal.
  Richard Vardon (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown in the first appeal.
  Richard Kovalevsky and Paul Mylvaganam (instructed by Arora Lodhi Heath) for the defendant in the second appeal.
  Gillian Etherton (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown in the second appeal.
  Andrew Urqhuart (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant in the third appeal.
  Nicholas Lobbenberg (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown in the third appeal.
  Francis Chamberlain (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant in the fourth appeal.
  Anna Vigars (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown in the fourth appeal.
  Deepak Kapur (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the first defendant in the fifth appeal.
  Anthony Dagleish (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the second defendant in the fifth appeal.
  Louis Mably (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown in the fifth appeal.
Judgment Dates: 11 November 2005

Catchwords

Criminal evidence - Character of accused - Guidance - Bad character - , ss 98 - 112.

The Case

The court heard a number of appeals together as they each raised different issues in relation to the bad character provisions of the . It held that a defendant's propensity could be proved in ways other than by evidence that he had been convicted of an offence, including the admission of a caution or offence taken into consideration (s104(2)). The 2003 Act completely reversed the pre-existing general rule that evidence of bad character was inadmissible on the ground that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value: where such evidence was relevant to an important issue between the prosecution and defence (s101(1)(d)), unless there was an application to exclude the evidence, it was admissible. It was important that the judge should encourage the making of such an application whenever it appeared that the admission of the evidence might have had such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court should not admit evidence of bad character.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.