In an action for damages and false imprisonment, the defendant police officers sought to have introduced the claimant’s previous criminal record, which was expired under the 1974 Act.
Held: The judge had been correct not to follow practice in criminal cases on such questions. The purpose of the Act in civil proceedings was to allow a person with spent convictions to present himself as of good character. The admission of the convictions was wrong in law, but it had not led to any substantial injustice.
Evans LJ said that the court: ‘has . . to consider whether the likely significance of the fact of a previous conviction in the . . eyes [of the court or tribunal] is such that [it] may be unfairly prejudiced against [that party] . . The adverb ‘unfairly’ is a necessary qualification, because some prejudice is inevitable except in cases of total and obvious irrelevance where . . the evidence should be excluded in any event. When relevance and prejudice coexist, then the judge can . . decide whether the potential prejudice to one party outweighs the prima facie right of the other party to introduce evidence of previous convictions [to the extent that they are relevant.]’
Sir Richard Scott VC said that if justice cannot be done without the evidence of the conviction being admitted, it will be admitted.
Judges:
Evans LJ, Sir Richard Scott V-C
Citations:
[1996] EWCA Civ 1052
Statutes:
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 7
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Nye CACD 1982
When there are previous convictions which are spent, it is not possible to refer to the defendant as a person of good character. It is however possible for a modified direction to be given to the effect that the defendant has no previous convictions . .
Cited – Clifford v Clifford 1961
The court stated the common law position of the cross examination of a defendant on his antecedents. Cairns J said: ‘The range of permissible cross-examination as to credit is, however, a very wide one. It has never, I think, been doubted that a . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v P HL 1991
The defendant faced specimen counts of rape and incest against each of his two daughters. The trial judge refused an application for separate trials in respect of the offences alleged against each daughter. The defendant was convicted.
Held: . .
Cited – Reynolds v Phoenix CA 1978
The court discussed the effect of the 1974 Act on the admission of a spent conviction which was relevant or potentially relevant (depending on the trial judge’s findings as to ‘materiality’ for insurance purposes) to a liability issue in the case: . .
Cited by:
Cited – A v B EAT 19-Feb-2013
EAT Practice and Procedure : Admissibility of Evidence – Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 – whether employment judge right to rule that justice could not be done without evidence of the employee’s spent . .
See Also – Thompson v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis; Hsu v Same CA 20-Feb-1997
CS Damages of 200,000 pounds by way of exemplary damages had been awarded against the police for unlawful arrest and assault.
Held: The court gave a guideline maximum pounds 50,000 award against police for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence, Information
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140919