Appeal from conviction of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug of Class A, that is to say cocaine. Challenge to good character direction ‘You know from the officer that the defendant is aged 42 and you know Mrs Lieden and the defendant that she has no convictions in this or any country, she therefore falls to be dealt with by you as a defendant of good character. Now, how does that impact upon her trial?
Well, a defendant of good character is entitled to say that I am as worthy of belief as anyone, so in the first place it goes to the question of whether or not you believe Mrs Moustakim’s account. Secondly, she is entitled to have it argued on her behalf that she is perhaps less likely than a defendant of bad character to have committed this or any criminal offence. Good character is not a defence to a criminal charge. We all start life with a good character, some of us lose it on our way through, and it will be for you to decide what weight is proper to put upon this lady’s good character when you come to consider the evidence which is your principal focus.’
Held: The direction was inadequate. Since the appellant’s character was a central issue in the case this conviction had to be regarded as unsafe.
The direction in the present case was inadequate because:
1. There is no explicit positive direction that the jury should take the appellant’s good character into account in her favour.
2. The judge’s version of the first limb of the direction did not say that her good character supported her credibility. The judge only said that she was entitled to say that she was as worthy of belief as anyone. It went, he said, to the question whether the jury believed her account.
3. The judge’s version of the second limb of the direction did not say that her good character might mean that she was less likely than otherwise might be the case to commit the crime. He said that she was entitled to have it argued that she was perhaps less likely to have committed the crime. The use of the word ‘perhaps’ is a significant dilution of the required direction.
4. In the judge’s direction each limb is expressed as what the defendant is entitled to say or argue, not as it should have been a direction from the judge himself.’
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Crim 3096
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Vye etc CACD 7-Apr-1993
Detailed guidance was given on good character directions, as to how and when they should be given, but: ‘Provided that the judge indicates to the jury the two respects in which good character may be relevant, ie credibility and propensity, this . .
Cited – Regina v Lloyd CACD 2000
The court in Lloyd was concerned with character directions which had been given in the form of questions.
Held: The conviction was unsafe. Good character directions should not be given in the form of a question, they should be given in the . .
Cited – Regina v Zielinski CACD 2007
Though a judge’s good character direction may be deficient the conviction may yet be safe. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.406598
