################
Stanley Burnton LJ concluded: ‘In our judgment, the evidence of the three incidents was evidence that was alleged to do with the evidence of the murder in question. The words of the statute are straightforward, and clearly apply to evidence of incidents alleged to have created the motive for the index offence. Indeed, where the evidence is reasonably relied upon for motive, it would be irrational to introduce a temporal requirement. Take these examples. A man is wounded in a shooting. He is hospitalised for six months. On discharge, he is alleged to have shot the man who is alleged to have been his attacker. In another case, the reprisal is the day after the first attack. In the second case, the evidence of the first attack is not bad character for the purposes of s.98, in the first it is.
In our judgment, the judge’s decision was clearly right, and we pay tribute to his clear and cogent ruling. Incidents (1) and (3) gave rise to the alleged motive for the murder that was the subject of the indictment. Incident [(2)] [ . . ] was part of the pattern: as was put by Mr Price, part of a series of ‘tit for tat’ incidents. Each of them had to do with the others, as had the index offence. They were not merely relevant: they were intrinsic to the prosecution’s case.
We add that, given these four incidents took place within a period of three months, if there were a temporal requirement in s.98(a), we would have held it to be satisfied.’
Judges:
Stanley Burnton LJ
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Crim 1130, [2013] 1 Cr App R 3
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lunkulu and Others v Regina CACD 7-Aug-2015
Request for leave to appeal out of time against convictions for murder and against sentence. Much evidence had been circumstantial, and the defendants alleged bias in the summing up, and complained of the admission of bad character evidence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459620
