The court emphasized the requirement to avoid satellite litigation and in specific the requirement to avoid…

The court emphasized the requirement to avoid satellite litigation and in specific the requirement to avoid…

The court emphasized the necessity to avoid litigation that is satellite in specific the requirement to avoid, if possible, the re-calling of witnesses to offer proof about issues the main topic of past beliefs. The events had been reminded regarding the need certainly to look for contract.

When there is a dispute about past beliefs that can’t be solved by agreed facts, prosecutors should provide cautious consideration to appropriate witness care that will add organizing aided by the police a witness care prepare with consideration being provided to unique measures applications. It might additionally be appropriate to possess reference to your hearsay conditions regarding the Chapter 2 of component 11 of this Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Part 108 regarding the Act limits the admissibility of proof previous beliefs as bad character proof where in fact the accused is faced with offences purported to have already been committed by them whenever aged 21 years or higher and also the past conviction or convictions had been for offences committed ahead of the chronilogical age of 14 to instances when

  1. Each of the offences are triable only on indictment, and
  2. The court is pleased that the passions of justice need the data become admissible.

A care can perform demonstrating bad character. It may be the topic of dispute when you look at the in an identical way that a conviction can be disputed. In case a caution is disputed by the accused, the court will work out considerable care in admitting the care as proof of bad character particularly in which the care had been accepted into the lack of legal services. A conviction is somewhat various to a care together with court will very carefully think about its capabilities of exclusion under section 101(3) – R v Olu 2010 EWCA Crim 2975.

A Penalty Notice will not include an admission of shame and will not impact the good character of a individual who takes one – see R v Gore and Maher 2009 EWCA Crim 1424. They have been consequently inadmissible as proof of bad character (R v Hamer 2010 EWCA Crim 2053).

Prosecutors should provide really consideration that is careful looking for admission of beliefs being invested beneath the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Part 7(2)(a) for the 1974 Act expressly excludes criminal procedures through the procedure for the general rule that an individual whoever convictions are invested will be addressed as an individual of great character. Nonetheless, some security is afforded to a defendant by Criminal Practice Direction V, 21A. 3 which supplies that no-one should refer in available court to a invested conviction with no authority of this judge which authority ought not to be provided with unless the passions of justice so require. Correctly, instances when an application is created by the prosecution to adduce character that is bad pertaining to an invested conviction would be exemplary.

Bad Character of Non-Defendants

The admissibility of bad character proof of non-defendants is governed by area 100 for the Act. This gives that such proof of an individual except that the accused is admissible if and just if –

  1. It is important explanatory evidence,
  2. It offers significant probative value in reference to a matter which –
    • Is just a matter in problem within the procedures, and
    • Is of substantial value into the context of this situation in general, or
  3. All events into the procedures consent to the data being admissible.

Proof is essential explanatory evidence if, without one, the court or jury would think it is impossible or hard precisely to know other proof in case as well as its value for knowing the situation all together is significant (section 100(2)). This subsection mirrors the supply in section 101(1)(c) and it also had been meant that the test that is same be of application to defendants and non-defendants alike.

Area 100(3) for the Act directs the court, whenever evaluating the probative value of the data when it comes to purposes of section 100(1)(b) to possess respect to

  1. The number and nature of activities, or other things, to that your proof applies;
  2. Whenever those activities or things are speculated to have occurred or existed;
  3. Where –
    • The data is proof of a person’s misconduct, and
    • It is strongly recommended that the data has probative value by explanation of similarity between that misconduct as well as other so-called misconduct

The type and degree associated with similarities and dissimilarities between all the so-called cases of misconduct;

  1. Where –
    • The data is proof of a person’s misconduct,
    • It is strongly recommended that see your face normally in charge of the misconduct charged, and
    • The identification of the individual in charge of the misconduct charged is disputed

The level to that your proof shows or tends to exhibit that the person that is same accountable each and every time.

Proof of a non-defendant’s bad character cannot be adduced with no leave associated with the court unless the parties agree. Nonetheless, when a judge has determined that the requirements for admissibility are met, there’s absolutely no discretion that is exclusionary for the workout associated with instance management capabilities regulating, for instance, way and period of cross assessment (R v Brewster and Cromwell 2010 EWCA Crim 1194). Prosecutors should just consent to the admission of bad character whenever one or each of one other gateways are pleased or it’s within the passions of justice to take action.

This part relates to both witnesses and people maybe maybe not called to offer proof except in which the problem is one of credibility whilst the credibility of the non-witness will be a matter never in problem. The part also covers those people who are deceased.

The creditworthiness of the witness is really a “matter in problem when you look at the procedures” for the purposes of section 100(1 b that is)( (see R v S (Andrew) 2006 EWCA Crim 1303) nonetheless, such bad character proof is only going to be admissible when it is “of significant importance when you look at the context of this situation as a whole”.

A application that is successful the defence might provide the cornerstone for a software for the admission of defendant bad character under section 101(1)(g) of this Act ( an assault on another person’s character) susceptible to the court’s discernment to exclude under section 101(3).

The defence seek to cross examine the complainant as to sexual behaviour or to adduce evidence on that matter, if the matter falls within the definition of bad character evidence, the judge will have to be satisfied as to both the requirements of section 100 and section 41 in cases where cross examination is restricted by statute, such as section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 where, upon the trial of a sexual offence.


The task when it comes to admissibility of bad character proof is governed by Part 20 for the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015. The significance of complying utilizing the guidelines governing procedure had been stressed in R v Bovell; R v Dowds 2005 EWCA Crim 1091 and subsequent instances have actually stressed the requirement to offer information in terms of convictions along with other proof of bad character in fun time.

A celebration desperate to adduce proof of a defendant’s bad character must serve notice prior to R21.4 for the CPR from the court officer and every other celebration:

  1. 28 times following the defendant pleads not liable into the magistrates’ court, or
  2. 2 weeks following the defendant pleads not liable into the Crown Court.

A celebration whom objects to your admission regarding the character that is bad must connect with the court to look for the objection and provide the applying no more than 2 weeks after solution regarding the notice.

Notice must certanly be written by a defendant, either orally or perhaps in composing, of a intention to adduce proof of his or her own bad character because quickly as reasonably practicable any in every occasion ahead of the proof is introduced (R21.8).

A court must provide good reasons for any decision to either allow or refuse the program (R21.5). This requirement is imposed by area 110 of this Act.

The court has energy, under R21.6 to alter certain requirements under this right part associated with CPR which includes an electric to dispense with a requirement for notice. Any celebration searching for an expansion must apply whenever serving the program and give an explanation for wait.


These can be accessed into the Forms area of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is really a general public document, released because of the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out of the general concepts Crown Prosecutors should follow if they make choices on situations.

Prosecution guidance

This guidance assists our prosecutors when they’re making choices about instances. It really is frequently updated to mirror alterations in practice and law.