The defendant appealed conviction for the murder of his infant son. Evidence said that he had lost his temper with a fire in the home as it would not light, and had damaged it with a hammer or by kicking it; evidence that he had lost his temper with a shower, smashing the shower head and cracking the bath; that he had thrown a remote control at the television and that he had hit the wing of his car with a hammer. The defendant appealed its admission.
Held: Tuckey LJ: ‘Persuasively though these submissions are put, we do not accept them. We do not doubt the Pettman principle as elaborated in the commentary to which we have referred, but we think it is important to bear in mind the Law Commission’s warning that the label ‘background evidence’ may be a vehicle for smuggling in otherwise inadmissible evidence for less than adequate reasons. Relevance and necessity are the touchstones of the principle. The fact that a man who is not shown to have any tendency to lose his temper and react violently towards human beings becomes frustrated with the violent towards inanimate object is, we think, irrelevant. Those of us who are ham-fisted or over ambitious DIY enthusiasts would be horrified to learn that frustration in this difficult field of endeavour could be used against us. By the same token it was not necessary for the jury to know about this. It was prejudicial and could only have diverted their attention from the very serious issue which they had to try. Nor could it be said that the case was incomplete or incomprehensible without the admission of this evidence. So we conclude that the judge should not have admitted it at the time he did.’
Judges:
Tuckey LJ
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Crim 1859
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Osbourne, Regina v CACD 13-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. He complained at the admission of a statement made by the police surgeon who had attended him in the police station as evidence of bad character under the 2003 Act. The statement was as to his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.250007