|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
R v Timson and Hales (1993)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
[1993] Crim LR 58, CA. The appellant challenged his conviction for an offence of
obtaining property by deception on the grounds that the judge had failed to
direct the jury as to his good character (see VyeDirection). He had one previous
conviction for drunk driving five years before the trial. The CourtOfAppeal held
that it would have been appropriate for the judge to have treated the defendant
as a man of good character, and directed the jury to that effect.
However, courts have not always been so generous, and the question whether a defendant
is of good character is regarded as a matter of judicial discretion (see RVOshea1993).
CaseLaw
CriminalLaw
EvidenceLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|