| My professional interests |
|
Computing Law Education Science and research |
| My leisure interests |
|
Martial arts Heritage railways Garden railways Motorcycles DIY |
| Downloads |
|
Linux downloads Windows downloads Java downloads Perl downloads Home automation downloads |
| About me |
|
Home & family My CV |
| Site info |
|
Contact the author Download policy Keyword index |
In a criminal trial, it is often the case that the prosecution wishes to impugn the character of the defendant by, for example, drawing the jury's attention to his or her previous criminal convictions (see EvidenceOfBadCharacter). There have been a number of striking cases in which the defendant was acquitted, when he or she would almost certainly have been convicted if the jury had know on his criminal past. However, it has until recently been a founding principle of English criminal law that a defendant's criminal or disreputable past may not be put in front of a jury. It was felt that to do this would undermine the general presumption of innocence which is the birthright of every Englishman blah blah blah...
The position at common law was that the prosecution could adduce evidence of the defendant's bad character only if the defendant put his own good character in issue (see PuttingCharacterInIssue), or under the rules on SimilarFactEvidence. This evidence, if it was admissible at all, would only be admissible as EvidenceInChief, since at common law the defendant was not allowed to testify at all. After the coming into force of the CriminalEvidenceAct1898, the defendant was able to testify and be cross-examined, and there were circumstances in which he could be cross-examined about his previous misconduct. However, this Act did not alter in any way the situation regarding evidence in chief -- only cross-examination.
Under the CriminalJusticeAct2003, the situation is rather different. Evidence in chief of the defendant's bad character can be adduced in the following circumstances:
The provision in s.103(1)(a) -- evidence of a disposition to commit offences of the same description or category -- are similar to the common-law provision that `similar fact' evidence can be admitted. s.103(1)(a) -- evidence necessary to correct a false impression -- encompasses the common-law provision that the defendant's bad character can be adduced if he puts his good character in issue, among other things. But note how many additional criteria there are under which evidence in chief of bad character may be admissible.
Note also that evidence of disposition, as a matter of disposition, includes evidence of past convictions for offenses of the same description or `category'. It is left to the Home Secretary to determine what categories of offense there shall be.
See also EvidenceofDisposition, CrossExaminationAsToBadCharacter.
| Search |
| Shameless plug |
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK |
| Editorial |
So you want to be a university lecturer? Read this first! Speak like your boss: new developments in managerese |
| Computing features |
|
File handling in the Linux kernel: an in-depth look at how Linux handles files, filesystems, and file I/O
All sorts of Linux stuff Confused about CLASSPATH? answers are here First steps in EJB using jBoss (recently revised for jBoss 3.2) |