The defendant appealed against his conviction for possessing drugs with intent to supply. He said that the court should not have allowed the cross-examination of a defence witness as to that witness’ bad character. The witness was on remand facing similar charges. The prosecution suggested that his circumstances provided a reason to take responsibility for the defendant’s actions.
Held: For a witness’ to be cross examined as to his characer, his credibility must be a substantial issue in the trial, and that bad character must have substantial probative value relative to the issue of that credibility: ‘Evidence of bad character is not confined to proof of previous convictions, but whether or not the evidence relied upon comprises convictions or previous conduct otherwise proved, it must pass the section 100(1) test of being (1) important explanatory evidence or (2) of substantial probative value on an issue of substantial importance. The purpose of section 100 in the present context is to limit the ambit of cross-examination to that which is substantially probative on the issue of credibility, if credibility is an issue of substantial importance in the case. One of its intended effects is to eliminate kite-flying and innuendo against the character of a witness in favour of a concentration upon the real issues in the case.’
The matters against the witness remained unproven accusations, which the witness could only be expected to deny, and: ‘These questions should not, by reason of the unfair prejudice they were capable of producing, have been permitted, certainly not unless the prosecution intended, with the judge’s leave, to prove them.’
However the judge’s warning had been strong and clear, and the other evidence also sufficient. The conviction remained safe.
Pitchford, Maddison, MacDuff LJJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 1153, [2010] WLR (D) 142, [2010] 2 Cr App R 19
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Justice Act 2003 100(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Renda, Regina v; Regina v Ball; Regina v Akram etc CACD 10-Nov-2005
Each defendant had been convicted after admission of bad character evidence against them under the 2003 Act.
Held: The admission of such evidence was a matter of discretion for the trial judge. The exercise of such discretion will only rarely . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Bovell; Regina v Dowds CACD 25-Apr-2005
The defendants appealed their convictions. In one case the prosecution had brought evidence of bad character. Bovell was convicted of wounding with intent, pleading self-defence. His legal team later discovered that the complainant had himself been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.416058