The court emphasized the necessity to avoid litigation that is satellite in specific the necessity to avoid…

The court emphasized the necessity to avoid litigation that is satellite in specific the necessity to avoid…

The court emphasized the requirement to avoid satellite litigation and in particular the requirement to avoid, if possible, the re-calling of witnesses to provide proof about issues the topic of past beliefs. The events had been reminded associated with the want to look for contract.

A witness care plan with consideration being given to special measures applications if there is a dispute about previous convictions that cannot be resolved by agreed facts, prosecutors should give very careful consideration to appropriate witness care which will include arranging with the police. It might be appropriate to own reference to the hearsay conditions for the Chapter 2 of component 11 regarding the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

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

  1. Both of this offences are triable only on indictment, and
  2. The court is pleased that the passions of justice need the data to be admissible.

A care is with the capacity of showing bad character. It may be the main topic of dispute into the same manner that a conviction can be disputed. In case a care is disputed by the accused, the court will work out considerable care in admitting the care as proof of bad character especially where in actuality the care had been accepted into the lack of legal services. A conviction is somewhat various to a care as well as the court will very carefully give consideration to its abilities of exclusion under section 101(3) – R v Olu 2010 EWCA Crim 2975.

A Penalty Notice will not contain an admission of guilt and will not impact the good character of the person whom accepts 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 offer 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 basic guideline that an individual whose convictions are invested is usually to be addressed as an individual of great character. Nonetheless, some protection is afforded to a defendant by Criminal Practice Direction V, 21A. 3 which supplies that no-one should refer in available court to an invested conviction without having the authority associated with the judge which authority ought not to be provided with unless the passions of justice therefore require. Properly, instances when an application is created because of the prosecution to adduce bad character proof in terms of a invested conviction will soon be exemplary.

Bad Character of Non-Defendants

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

  1. It’s important explanatory evidence,
  2. It offers significant value that is probative regards to a matter which –
    • Is really a matter in issue into the procedures, and
    • Is of significant value into the context of this situation all together, or
  3. All events to your procedures accept the data being admissible.

Proof is very important explanatory evidence if, without one, the court or jury would think it is impossible or hard correctly to comprehend other proof in case and its own value for comprehending the instance all together is significant (section 100(2)). This subsection mirrors the supply in section 101(1)(c) and it also ended up being meant that the test that is same be of application to defendants and non-defendants alike.

Area 100(3) associated with Act directs the court, whenever evaluating the probative worth of the data for the purposes of section 100(1)(b) to possess respect to

  1. The nature and quantity of occasions, or any other activities, to that your proof applies;
  2. Whenever those occasions or things are purported to have existed or happened;
  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 misconduct that is alleged

The character and degree regarding the 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 can be accountable for the misconduct charged, and
    • The identification of the individual accountable for the misconduct charged is disputed

The degree to that the proof shows or tends to demonstrate that the same individual ended up being accountable each and every time.

Proof of a non-defendant’s character that is bad be adduced minus the leave of this court unless the events agree. But, as soon as a judge has determined that the requirements for admissibility are met, there is absolutely no exclusionary discernment save for the exercise for the instance administration abilities regulating, for instance, way and amount of cross assessment (R v Brewster and Cromwell 2010 EWCA Crim 1194). Prosecutors should just accept the admission of bad character whenever one or each of one other gateways are pleased or it really is when you look at the interests of justice to do this.

This area relates to both witnesses and people perhaps maybe perhaps not called to offer proof except where the issue is regarded as credibility because the credibility of a non-witness will not be a matter in problem. The area also covers those people who are deceased.

The creditworthiness of a witness is just a “matter in problem into the procedures” for the purposes of section 100(1 b that is)( (see R v S (Andrew) 2006 EWCA Crim 1303) nevertheless, such bad character proof is only going to be admissible in case it is “of significant value within the context associated with situation as a whole”.

A application that is successful the defence might provide the foundation for a credit card applicatoin for the admission of defendant bad character under section 101(1)(g) for the 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 process when it comes to admissibility of bad character proof is governed by role 20 for the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015. The significance of complying with all the guidelines governing procedure had been stressed in R v Bovell; R v Dowds 2005 EWCA Crim 1091 and subsequent situations have stressed the requirement to offer information pertaining to convictions along with other proof of bad character in fun time.

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

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

A celebration who objects to your admission regarding the bad character proof must affect 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 distributed by a defendant, either orally or perhaps in composing, of an intention to adduce proof of his very own bad character because quickly as fairly practicable any in every event ahead of the proof is introduced (R21.8).

A court must offer good reasons for any choice to either allow or refuse the program (R21.5). This requirement is imposed by part 110 associated with Act.

The court has power, under R21.6 to alter what’s needed under this right part associated with CPR including an electrical to dispense with a requirement for notice. Any celebration looking for an expansion must apply whenever serving the application form and give an explanation for wait.


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

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

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

Prosecution guidance

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