The court emphasized the requirement to avoid satellite litigation and in specific the necessity to avoid…

The court emphasized the necessity to avoid litigation that is satellite in specific the necessity to avoid, if possible, the re-calling of witnesses to offer proof about things the main topic of past beliefs. The events had been reminded associated with the need certainly to look for agreement.

If you have a dispute about previous beliefs that simply cannot be remedied by agreed facts, prosecutors should offer careful consideration to appropriate witness care that may add organizing with all the authorities a witness care prepare with consideration being provided to unique measures applications. It may additionally be appropriate to own reference towards the hearsay conditions regarding the Chapter 2 of Part 11 of this Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Part 108 regarding the Act limits the admissibility of proof past beliefs as bad character proof where in fact the accused is faced with offences purported to were committed by them whenever aged 21 years or higher and also the conviction that is previous beliefs had been for offences committed prior to the chronilogical age of 14 to instances when

  1. Both for the offences are triable only on indictment, and
  2. The court is pleased that the passions of justice need evidence become admissible.

A care is effective at appearing character that is bad. It could be the topic of dispute within the way that is same a conviction might be disputed. In case a care is disputed by the accused, the court will work out considerable care in admitting the care as proof of bad character specially in which the care ended up being accepted into the lack of legal counsel. A conviction is somewhat various to a care together with court will carefully start thinking about its abilities of exclusion under section 101(3) – R v Olu 2010 EWCA Crim 2975.

A Penalty Notice will not contain an admission of shame and will not impact the character that is good of person whom takes one – see R v Gore and Maher 2009 EWCA Crim 1424. They’re consequently inadmissible as proof of bad character (R v Hamer 2010 EWCA Crim 2053).

Prosecutors should provide really consideration that is careful searching for admission of beliefs which are spent beneath the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Part 7(2)(a) of this 1974 Act expressly excludes criminal proceedings through the procedure for the rule that is general an individual whoever beliefs are invested is usually to be addressed as an individual of good character. Nevertheless, some security is afforded to a defendant by Criminal Practice Direction V, 21A. 3 which supplies that nobody should refer in available court up to a spent conviction minus the authority associated with judge which authority ought not to get unless the passions of justice therefore require. Appropriately, instances when a software is manufactured by the prosecution to adduce character that is bad with regards to an invested conviction is going to be excellent.

Bad Character of Non-Defendants

The admissibility of bad character proof of non-defendants is governed by part 100 of this Act. This gives that such proof of an individual apart from the accused is admissible if and just if –

  1. It is necessary explanatory evidence,
  2. It offers substantial value that is probative regards to a matter which –
    • Is a matter in problem into the procedures, and
    • Is of significant value when you look at the context of this situation in general, or
  3. All events to your proceedings consent to the data being admissible.

Proof is very important explanatory evidence if, it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case and its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial (section 100(2)) without it, the court or jury would find. This subsection mirrors the supply in section 101(1)(c) and it also had been meant that the same test would be of application to defendants and non-defendants alike.

Area 100(3) associated with Act directs the court, whenever assessing the probative value of the data when it comes to purposes of section 100(1)(b) to possess respect to

  1. The nature and quantity of occasions, or any other things, to that the proof relates;
  2. Whenever those activities or things are speculated to have existed or happened;
  3. Where –
    • The data is evidence of a person’s misconduct, and
    • It’s advocated that evidence has probative value by explanation of similarity between that misconduct as well as other so-called misconduct

The extent and nature associated with similarities and dissimilarities between all the alleged cases of misconduct;

  1. Where –
    • The data is proof of a person’s misconduct,
    • It’s advocated that see your face can be accountable for the misconduct charged, and
    • The identity of the individual responsible for the misconduct charged is disputed

The degree to that the proof shows or tends showing that the person that is same responsible each and every time.

Proof of a non-defendant’s bad character cannot be adduced with no leave regarding the court unless the events agree. Nevertheless, when a judge has determined that the requirements for admissibility are met, there isn’t any exclusionary discernment save for the workout for the situation administration abilities regulating, for instance, way and amount of cross assessment (R v Brewster and Cromwell 2010 EWCA Crim 1194). Prosecutors should only accept the admission of bad character whenever one or both of one other gateways are satisfied or it’s when you look at the passions of justice to take action.

This area relates to both witnesses and those maybe not called to provide evidence except in which the problem is regarded as credibility once the credibility of a non-witness will never ever be a matter in problem. The part additionally covers those people who are deceased.

The creditworthiness of the witness is just a “matter in problem within the procedures” for the purposes of section 100(1 b that is)( (see R v S (Andrew) 2006 EWCA Crim 1303) nevertheless, such bad character evidence will simply be admissible if it’s “of significant value into the context for the situation as a whole”.

A application that is successful the defence might provide the foundation for a software for the admission of defendant bad character under section 101(1)(g) regarding the Act ( an attack on another person’s character) subject to the court’s discernment to exclude under section 101(3).

Where cross assessment is fixed by statute, such as for instance part 41 associated with Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 where, upon the test of the intimate offense, the defence seek to get across examine the complainant as to intimate behavior or to adduce proof on that matter, in the event that matter falls inside the concept of bad character evidence, the judge should be pleased as to both what’s needed of part 100 and area 41.


The task when it comes to admissibility of bad character proof is governed by role 20 associated with Criminal Procedure Rules 2015. The necessity of complying aided by the guidelines procedure that is governing stressed in R v Bovell; R v Dowds 2005 EWCA Crim 1091 and subsequent situations have actually stressed the necessity to offer information with regards to beliefs as well as other proof of bad character in good time.

A celebration wanting to adduce evidence of a defendant’s character that is bad serve notice according to R21.4 for the CPR from the court officer and every other celebration:

  1. 28 times following the defendant pleads not liable within the magistrates’ court, or
  2. Week or two following the defendant pleads not guilty into the Crown Court.

A celebration whom objects towards the admission for the character that is bad must connect with the court to look for the objection and provide the applying no more than 2 weeks after solution associated with the notice.

Notice must certanly be distributed by a defendant, either orally or in writing, of a intention to adduce proof his or her own bad character since quickly as fairly practicable any in virtually any occasion prior to the proof is introduced (R21.8).

A court must provide cause of any choice to either allow or refuse the program (R21.5). This requirement is imposed by part 110 associated with Act.

The court has energy, under R21.6 to vary what’s needed under this right part associated with the CPR including an electrical to dispense with a necessity for notice. Any celebration searching for an expansion must use when serving the program and give an explanation for wait.


These could be accessed into the Forms area of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is a general public document, granted by the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out of the general concepts Crown Prosecutors should follow if they make decisions on instances.

Prosecution guidance

This guidance assists our prosecutors when they’re making choices about instances. It really is frequently updated to mirror alterations in legislation and training.