The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape, saying the judge had misused the bad character evidence.
Held: The judge had misdirected the jury and the conviction could not stand. He should have identified each element introduced according to the ruling admitting the evidence, and given a direction for each as to the need for the criminal standard of proof, to disregard any point not so proved, as to the significance of any point the found to be proved, and the need for care with alternate possibilities.
‘there should have been a bad character direction, encompassing the following elements:
(a) Identification of the incidents evidence of which had been adduced pursuant to his bad character ruling;
(b) A direction that, with respect to each incident, the jury should decide whether the facts as alleged by the Crown had been proved so that they were sure of them, that is to the criminal standard of proof;
(c) A direction that, with respect to any incident not so proved, the evidence should be put aside and accorded no significance;
(d) A direction as to the potential significance of any incident that had been proved – in this case that the incidents may throw light on the relationship between Complainant and Defendant and thus bear upon the potential for consent on her part to his sexual advances; and
(e) finally, a warning against necessarily according the incidents any significance if an alternative construction serves to cast doubt upon the construction contended for by the Crown and also against attaching too much weight to this evidence.
In formulating this approach we have drawn a ready parallel between it and the approach to evidence as to lies, that is, the Lucas Direction. Just as the latter imposes a two stage consideration (are you sure that he did lie? If so, why did he lie – were the reasons consistent with guilt or were they or may they have been innocent?), we have here in a case not involving previous convictions, a need to make a finding as to the fact of the incident alleged before proceeding to a further stage of assessment of significance in accordance with the burden and standard of proof.’
Smith LJ, Underhill J, Sir Christopher Holland
[2007] EWCA Crim 3047
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 98
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Campbell (K) CACD 26-Jun-2007
The defendant complained that the court, having admitted his previous convictions, had made only an inadequate distinction for the jury between its use as evidence of propensity as opposed to credibility.
Held: The appeal failed. Once the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Sullivan, Regina v CACD 25-Sep-2015
The defendant appealed against his conviction of producing a controlled drug, namely cannabis. It was contended that the judge failed to provide guidance or directions to the jury as to how they ought to approach the text messages downloaded from . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.262170