If one defendant claims a defence of duress from fear of the other’s driving, the other driver’s driving convictions are relevant and can be admitted in evidence. Evidence of the convictions of the other driver should have been admitted even though he did not give evidence because they were relevant. Knowledge of his character might well have coloured the jury’s deliberations and bolstered the credibility of Murray’s account. Unless there is simply no nexus whatever between the previous convictions sought to be adduced and the offence alleged against the accused, they should be admitted and admitted in these particular circumstances without any nice distinctions being drawn between the various individual offences recorded in the record.
Citations:
Ind Summary 11-Jul-1994, Times 24-Jun-1994, [1995] RTR 239
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Randall (EP) CACD 21-Feb-2003
The defendant had been a co-accused on a charge of murder. He appealed saying the judge had incorrectly directed the jury on the relevance of his co-accused’s previous convictions for violence.
Held: The appeal was allowed. He should have been . .
Cited – Regina v Randall HL 18-Dec-2003
Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By . .
Cited – Regina v Southwark Coroner ex parte Fields Admn 30-Jan-1998
The deceased died after being hit by a policemen with his baton when being arrested. The verdict of misadventure was now challenged. The police officer said he had hit out in fear of imminent attack. It was said that the Coroner had permitted those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence, Road Traffic
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87397