Each defendant had been convicted after admission of bad character evidence against them under the 2003 Act.
Held: The admission of such evidence was a matter of discretion for the trial judge. The exercise of such discretion will only rarely been interfered with by a court of appeal: ‘Having concluded that none of the individual complaints, taken on its own, impugns the safety of these convictions, we reconsidered whether the convictions were rendered unsafe by the cumulative effect of the problems we have identified. Having done so, we have concluded that these convictions are safe. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed. ‘
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Crim 2826, Times 16-Nov-2005, [2006] 2 All ER 553
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 2003 Part II
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Miller v Regina CACD 26-May-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for possessing drugs with intent to supply. He said that the court should not have allowed the cross-examination of a defence witness as to that witness’ bad character. The witness was on remand facing . .
Cited – Jefferies, Regina (on The Application of) v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 15-Feb-2012
The claimant requested that the Crown court state a case. He had been convicted under the 1986 Act after remonstrating with the lady driver of another car. She had locked her doors and remained seated at all time. The court had refused to admit into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234700