H, Regina v, (Criminal propensity): CACD 3 Dec 2009

Incomplete Information distorted jury’s picture

The defendant appealed against his conviction for robbery saying that it was a named third party. The jury had been told of his own previous conviction for robbery, but not that the third party had also so been previously convicted. The jury had only been informed that the third party had a conviction for theft.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The limit on the evidence has distorted the picture given to the jury, and the appeal succeeded. Section 100 of the 2003 Act did preclude evidence of propensity or as to credibility of a non-defendant being admitted. However, Weir established that evidence relating to credibility was admissible under section 100. The same applied to evidence relating to propensity.

Lord Justice Moses, Mr Justice Irwin and Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart
[2009] EWCA Crim 2899, Times 23-Feb-2010, (2010) 174 JP 203
Criminal Justice Act 2003 100
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Weir, Somanathan,Yaxley-Lennon, Manister, Qiang He and De Qun He CACD 11-Nov-2005
The defendant objected to evidence being used as evidence of bad character against him under the 2003 Act, when it would not have been admissible as similar fact evidence under the old rules.
Held: Obiter dicta in O’Brien did not mean that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.406140