||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 07 (May)
||Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Hooper LJ, Leveson and Beatson JJ
||Gerard Hillman (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
||John Kellett (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
||2 May 2006
Criminal evidence - Character of accused - Previous conviction - Burglary - Previous convictions showing propensity to commit such offences as charged - Whether judge erring in hearing oral application to adduce convictions late in prosecution case - Whether judge's finding that defendant would not suffer prejudice unreasonable - Whether conviction unsafe - , s 101(1)(d).
In all the circumstances of the instant case, the judge had been entitled to entertain the application by the prosecution towards the end of its case to adduce evidence of the defendant's previous convictions, and his decision that the defendant would not suffer prejudice, which, in order to be challenged, had to be shown to be unreasonable, was far from unreasonable. It followed that the defendant's conviction for burglary was not unsafe.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary