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 form of an affirmative statement, and that applied even if the question was a leading question; that in a case such as this one which turned almost entirely on the question of credibility as between the complainant and the appellant, the question of credibility was of the greatest importance and relevance so that, in the absence of an appropriate direction as to good character, the convictions were unsafe.
Lord Taylor LCJ said, as to a good character direction: ‘To summarise, in our judgment the following principles are to be applied:
(1) A direction as to the relevance of his good character to a defendant’s credibility is to be given where he has testified or made pre-trial answers or statements.
(2) A direction as to the relevance of his good character to likelihood of his having committed the offence charged is to be given, whether or not he has testified, or made pre-trial answers or statements.’
Judges:
Lord Taylor LCJ
Citations:
[2000] 2 Cr App R 355
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 by:
Cited – Moustakim, Regina v CACD 27-Nov-2008
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.652305