The defendant appealed a conviction for theft from his employer. There were burglaries in circumstances which suggested help from within the company. The defendant now appealed the non-admission of evidence showing a co-worker had been soliciting such assistance. It was said that evidence went only as to her credit.
Held: This evidence was not sufficiently relevant to justify its admission. To have admitted it would have wasted the jury’s time, unnecessarily extended the trial, and confused the issues to no ultimate point.
Judges:
Lord Justice Henry Mr Justice Mitchell And His Honour Judge David Mellor
Citations:
[1998] EWCA Crim 3430
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Harris v Tippett 1811
Where the character of a witness is relevant to the issue, cross examination is permitted, ‘As to any improper conduct of which he may have been guilty for the purpose of trying his credit; but, when the questions are irrelevant to the issue on the . .
Cited – Palmer v Trower 1852
Evidence is not admissible to contradict answers given by a witness to questions put in cross-examination which concern collateral matters, ie matters which go merely to credit but which are otherwise irrelevant to the issues in the case. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence
Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.156304
