The appellant had been convicted of importing cocaine. He had no previous convictions. However, he gave evidence that he had been smuggling gold and jewels into the UK so as to avoid duty and VAT. The Recorder directed the jury to have regard to the good character of the appellant to the extent that it was relevant to his credibility. She declined to give the propensity limb of the good character direction.
Held: The appeal failed. A good character direction was inappropriate where the defendant had told the jury of his criminal acts. The admitted misconduct was so closely related to the criminality now alleged against him that it would have been an affront to common sense to hold that the appellant was entitled to the propensity limb of the direction.
Citations:
Times 06-May-1994, [1994] Crim LR 83
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – GAI v Regina CACD 5-Oct-2012
The defendant’s appeal based on the absence of a good character direction had succeeded. The court now gave its reasons.
Held: After reviewing the authorities, the appeal succeeded: ‘the learned judge was wrong to find that the fact that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88366
