A defendant was not to be asked about any previous convictions, unless he had ‘lost his shield’ and incurred liability to such cross-examination by putting his own character in issue, either by putting questions or giving evidence with a view to establish his good character or if he attacked the character of the prosecution witnesses.
Viscount Dilhorne set out the following propositions: ‘(a) The words of the statute must be given their ordinary natural meaning;
(b) The section permits cross-examination of the accused as to the character, both when imputations on the character of the prosecutor and his witnesses are cast to show their unreliability as witnesses independently of the evidence given by them and also when the casting of imputations is necessary to enable the accused to establish his defence;
(c) In rape cases the accused can allege consent without placing himself in peril of cross-examination;
(d) If what is said amounts in reality to no more than a denial of the charge, expressed, it may be, in emphatic language, it should not be regarded as coming within the section.’
Judges:
Viscount Dilhorne
Citations:
[1970] AC 304, (1968) 52 Cr App R 443
Statutes:
Criminal Evidence Act 1898 1(f)(ii)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Becouarn HL 28-Jul-2005
At his trial for murder, the defendant had not given evidence, and the court had allowed the jury to draw proper inferences under s35.
Held: The JSB direction ‘on drawing inferences [i]s sufficiently fair to defendants, emphasising as it does . .
Cited – Regina v O CACD 25-Sep-1996
The defendants appealed their convictions for assault. They complained that the judge had wrongly allowed one defendant to be cross examined as to her previous convictions, and that this had undermined the second defendant also.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229099