Evidence of Bad Character Case Study

Evidence of Bad Character Case Study1.That Z had sex with T D HThe say that Z had sex with T D H sight be admitted with the jibement of on the whole the parties1. thus far it is un in totally probability that Z would mark off that this deduction could be admitted at that placeof that X would crap to rely on one of the different eatable of section ascorbic acid (1) of the Criminal referee routine 2003 in order to admit the establish.Section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice operation 2003 stipulates, Evidence of the handsome character of a person other than the defendant is admittable if and only ifIt is crucial explanatory evidence,It has firm probative honour in relation to a matter which is a matter in answer in the proceedings, andis of real(a) importance in the context of the case as a whole, orall parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible then it is likely that Z will try and admit this evidence under s100(1)(b) arguing that it has substantial probative order in relation to a matter that is either a matter in issue in the proceedings or that is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. In order to determine whether or not the evidence has substantial probative judge case honor prior to the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be considered where it was considered that such evidence could be admitted if it was striking similarity2and of sufficient probative force to overcome prejudice.3It is likely that this evidence will be admitted.2.That Z was convicted of wasting police timeThe evidence that Z had been convicted of wasting police time could again be admitted if both parties agree to the evidence being admitted. However it is unlikely that Z would agree that this evidence can be admitted therefore that X would have to rely on one of the other victuals of section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in order to admit the evidence.Section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 stipulates that evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only ifIt is significant explanatory evidence,It has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which is a matter in issue in the proceedings, andis of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, orall parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible because it is likely that Z will try and admit this evidence under s100(1)(b) arguing that it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter that is either a matter in issue in the proceedings or that is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. In order to determine whether or not the evidence has substantial probative value case law prior to the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be considered, as above and in servant of that evidence it is unlikely that the evidence will be admitted. This does not appear to be of substanti al importance and it is likely that the jury could reach the right determination without hearing this evidence.3.That W is a lesbian who is prejudiced against menThe evidence that W is a lesbian who is prejudiced against men can be admitted with the engagement of all the parties4. However it is unlikely that W would agree that this evidence could be admitted therefore that X would have to rely on one of the other provisions of section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in order to admit the evidence.Section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 stipulates, evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only ifIt is important explanatory evidence,It has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which is a matter in issue in the proceedings, andis of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, orall parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissibleTherefore it is likely that Z will try and admit this evidence under s100(1)(b) arguing that it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter that is either a matter in issue in the proceedings or that is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. On this basis it is unlikely that this evidence will be admitted.4.Psychiatric evidence in gaze of YThe evidence that Y is suffering from Potipahrs Wife Syndrome can be admitted by sympathy by the parties. 5 However it is unlikely that Y would agree that this evidence could be admitted therefore that X would have to rely on one of the other provisions of section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in order to admit the evidence.Section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 stipulates that evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only ifIt is important explanatory evidence,It has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which is a matter in issue in the proceedings, andis of substanti al importance in the context of the case as a whole, orall parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissibleX will need to argue that the evidence is important explanatory evidence. Evidence is important explanatory evidence for these purposes if (a) without it, the judicial system or jury would see to it it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and (b) its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial6. buy food in relation to evidence of conduct, which is alleged to be similar to matters in dispute at the trial, evidence of witnesss bad character may not be adduced without the leave of the court7. Section 100(3) identifies certain factors to be taken into account by the trial judge, alongside either others considered relevant, in exercising his savvy to grant leave to allow bad character evidence to be disposed. Such factors include the number of relevant incidents, the lapse of time, and other common common sense considerations relating to similarities surrounded by past and present conduct and questions of contested identity. Therefore such evidence will only be admitted if it bears substantial probative value, and the court grants leave. It would therefore be concluded that in this instance that the evidence would be admitted.5.Previous evidence of VAssuming as discussed above that the X is not successful in admitting any of the evidence (as if he is this will mean that the evidence of his bad character and previous reliances will automatically be admitted) the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contains a dedicated scheme of rules to regulate the admissibility of evidence of the charges extraneous misconduct in s101 (1). These rules are different from those rules that exist for the admittance of other witnesss previous character.In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendants bad character is admissible if, but only if all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissi ble,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,It is important explanatory evidence,It is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the pursuitIt has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,It is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, ofThe defendant has make an attack on another persons characterTherefore this evidence can be admitted by agreement by the parties however this is unlikely. Therefore it is likely that the prosecution will attempt to admit the evidence under sections c and d and this are provisions, which are refer with similar fact evidence. angiotensin converting enzyme significant dimension of the similar facts cases concerned the dangers posed by deliberate collusion between witnesses or innocent cross-contamination of their evidence.In deter mining the admissibility of evidence of the impeachs misconduct in the first instance, however, section 109 obliges the court to treat the evidence as true, unless it appears, on the basis of any literal before the court (including any evidence it decides to hear on the matter), that no court or jury could reasonably find it to be true8. Therefore given the similarities between the previous incident and the current one it is likely that this information will be allowed to be admitted into the current proceedings. The reason for this is that the evidence can either be considered to be important explanatory evidence or alternatively that it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution6.Xs previous conviction of ExposureThe CJA 2003 contains a dedicated scheme of rules to regulate the admissibility of evidence of the accuseds extraneous misconduct in s101(1)In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendants bad character is admissible if, but only if all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,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,It is important explanatory evidence,It is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecutionIt has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,It is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, ofThe defendant has made an attack on another persons characterTherefore this evidence can be admitted by agreement by the parties however this is unlikely. Therefore it is likely that the prosecution will attempt to admit the evidence under sections c and d and this are provisions, which are concerned with similar fact evidence. One significant dimension of the similar facts cases concerned the dangers posed by deliberate collusion between witnesses or in nocent cross-contamination of their evidence.In determining the admissibility of evidence of the accuseds misconduct in the first instance, however, section 109 obliges the court to treat the evidence as true, unless it appears, on the basis of any material before the court (including any evidence it decides to hear on the matter), that no court or jury could reasonably find it to be true9.Section 107 where evidence of the accuseds bad character has been admitted into the trial without the accuseds agreement, under section 101(1) paragraphs (c)-(g), and the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the prosecutions case that (i) that evidence is colly such that (ii) a conviction would be unsafe, the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of this offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a retrial, discharge the jury. Either way, proceedings will not be allowed to continue if it emerges during the course of the trial that material evidence of bad character has been contaminated.A previous conviction can be admitted as evidence of propensity if it falls into either (i) one of the categories of offences or (ii) the statement of the offence in a written charge or indictment would be the same. Thus, a person who has been convicted of actual bodily harm and is flat charged with actual bodily harm will fall into the second category (same description)-but a person who has been convicted of theft and is now charged with burglary would not. However, the Home procedure will introduce two sets of categories of offences-the first broadly comprising all Theft Act offences, the second comprising sexual offences involving sexual contact with children.Therefore given the similarities between the previous incident and the current one it is likely that this information will be allowed to be admitted into the current proceedings. The reason for this is that the evidence can either be considered to be important explanatory evidence or alterna tively that it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution7.Directing the control boardBecause of the statutory grounding of the criminal evidence rules the rules on directing the jury, in relation to similar fact evidence and evidence of bad character have altered somewhat. The provisions that we are concerned with here are contained within Section 107 where evidence of the accuseds bad character has been admitted into the trial without the accuseds agreement, under section 101(1) paragraphs (c)-(g), and the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the prosecutions case that (i) that evidence is contaminated such that (ii) a conviction would be unsafe, the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of this offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a retrial, discharge the jury. Either way, proceedings will not be allowed to continue if it emerges during the course of the trial that material evidence of bad character has been contaminated.Finally, there is a power for the court to discharge the jury and either direct an acquittal or order a retrial if a judge, having admitted evidence of bad character, ulterior decides that such evidence was contaminated. Contamination is defined in terms of evidence that is false or misleading in any respect, as a offspring of the witness who gave the evidence either having agreed to give false evidence, or being affected by hearing other evidence in the case. It seems these provisions are aimed particularly at allegations of multiple sexual abuse where other allegations are, on occasion, felt to be the consequence of collaboration by different witnesses. In such cases it would be open to the judge to cure the problem by direction to the jury, but where it is felt that direction is inadequate and any subsequent conviction would be unsafe, the judge is empowered to discharge the jury.In conclusion therefore if the judge is satisfied with the evidence and there is no evidence of contamination or collusion then this evidence of the defendants previous bad character will be admitted.BibliographyLegislationCriminal Justice Act 2003BooksDennis I, (2002) The lawfulness of Evidence, Sweet and MaxwellHuxley P OConnell M, (2004) Statutes on Evidence, Oxford University PressMcEwan J, (1998) Evidence and the Adversarial Process, Hart PublishingTapper C, (2003) Cross and Tapper on Evidence, Oxford University PressZuckermann A Roberts P, (2004) Criminal Evidence, Oxford University Press1Footnotes1 S100 (1) (C)2 DPP v Boardman 1975 AC 421 HL3 DPP v P 1991 2 AC 447 at 4604 S100 (1) (C)5 S100 (1) (C)6 S100(2)7 S100(4)8 S 109 (2)9 S 109 (2)