Evidence of Bad Character Case Study

Evidence of Bad piece Case Study1.That Z had sex with T D HThe distinguish that Z had sex with T D H drive out be take overted with the matework forcet of completely the parties1. in m it is un credibly that Z would defy that this reason could be admitted thusly that X would have to rely on one of the separate victuals of percentage 100 (1) of the felonious arbiter Act 2003 in order to admit the certify. divide 100 (1) of the outlaw umpire Act 2003 stipulates, Evidence of the toughened character of a psyche other than the defendant is permissible if and yet ifIt is strategic explanatory essay,It has hearty probative none value in social intercourse to a matter which is a matter in recurrence in the legal proceeding, andis of secure importance in the context of the case as a whole, orall parties to the proceedings allot to the usher cosmos permissible and so it is likely that Z forget try and admit this leaven under s100(1)(b) arguing that it h as signifi placet probative value in similitude to a matter that is every a matter in issue in the proceedings or that is of corporeal importance in the context of the case as a whole. In order to determine whether or not the evidence has full-blooded probative value case law prior to the enactment of the iniquitous arbitrator Act 2003 should be considered where it was considered that such evidence could be admitted if it was collision likeity2and of sufficient probative force to overcome prejudice.3It is likely that this evidence pass on be admitted.2.That Z was convicted of wasting police epochThe evidence that Z had been convicted of wasting police time could again be admitted if both parties meet to the evidence being admitted. However it is unlikely that Z would agree that this evidence can be admitted therefore that X would have to rely on one of the other provisions of section 100 (1) of the nefarious legal expert Act 2003 in order to admit the evidence.Section 100 (1) of the vicious rightness Act 2003 stipulates that evidence of the worst character of a psyche other than the defendant is admissible if and only ifIt is important explanatory evidence,It has certain probative value in relation to a matter which is a matter in issue in the proceedings, andis of important importance in the context of the case as a whole, orall parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissibleTherefore it is likely that Z will try and admit this evidence under s100(1)(b) arguing that it has unquestionable probative value in relation to a matter that is whatsoever a matter in issue in the proceedings or that is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. In order to determine whether or not the evidence has substantial probative value case law prior to the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be considered, as above and in setting of that evidence it is unlikely that the evidence will be admitted. This does not come out of the closet to be of substantial importance and it is likely that the panel could reach the in effect(p) conclusion without hearing this evidence.3.That W is a lesbian who is prejudiced against menThe evidence that W is a lesbian who is prejudiced against men can be admitted with the organisation of all the parties4. However it is unlikely that W would agree that this evidence could be admitted therefore that X would have to rely on one of the other provisions of section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in order to admit the evidence.Section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 stipulates, evidence of the regretful character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only ifIt is important explanatory evidence,It has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which is a matter in issue in the proceedings, andis of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, orall parties to the proceedings agree to the ev idence being admissibleTherefore it is likely that Z will try and admit this evidence under s100(1)(b) arguing that it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter that is every a matter in issue in the proceedings or that is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. On this basis it is unlikely that this evidence will be admitted.4.Psychiatric evidence in respect of YThe evidence that Y is suffering from Potipahrs Wife Syndrome can be admitted by agreement by the parties. 5 However it is unlikely that Y would agree that this evidence could be admitted therefore that X would have to rely on one of the other provisions of section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in order to admit the evidence.Section 100 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 stipulates that evidence of the hard character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only ifIt is important explanatory evidence,It has substantial probative value in relation to a mat ter which is a matter in issue in the proceedings, andis of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, orall parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissibleX will need to argue that the evidence is important explanatory evidence. Evidence is important explanatory evidence for these purposes if (a) without it, the solicit or panel would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and (b) its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial6. Except in relation to evidence of conduct, which is alleged to be similar to matters in dispute at the trial, evidence of witnesss tough character may not be adduced without the leave of the court7. Section 100(3) identifies certain concomitantors to be taken into account by the trial judge, on board any others considered applicable, in exercising his discretion to grant leave to take bad character evidence to be wedded. Such factors include the count of relevant incidents, the lapse of time, and other common sense considerations relating to similarities surrounded by sometime(prenominal) and present conduct and questions of contested identity. Therefore such evidence will only be admitted if it bears substantial probative value, and the court grants leave. It would therefore be concluded that in this instance that the evidence would be admitted.5.Previous evidence of VAssuming as discussed above that the X is not successful in admitting any of the evidence (as if he is this will mean that the evidence of his bad character and introductory credendums will automatically be admitted) the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contains a dedicated evasion of rules to regulate the admissibility of evidence of the accuses extraneous wrongful conduct in s101 (1). These rules argon different from those rules that cost for the admittance of other witnesss precedent character.In execrable proceedings evidence of the defendants bad character is a dmissible if, but only if all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in state to a question asked by him in cross-examination and mean to elicit it,It is important explanatory evidence,It is relevant to an important matter in issue betwixt the defendant and the pursuitIt has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,It is evidence to correct a false whim given by the defendant, ofThe defendant has made an attack on another(prenominal) persons characterTherefore this evidence can be admitted by agreement by the parties however this is unlikely. Therefore it is likely that the pursuance will examine to admit the evidence under sections c and d and this are provisions, which are concerned with similar fact evidence. One of import dimension of the similar facts cases concerned the dangers posed by deliberate tacit consent between witnesses or innocent cross-taint of their evidence.In determining the admissibility of evidence of the accuses misconduct in the first instance, however, section 109 obliges the court to interact the evidence as true, unless it appears, on the basis of any material earlier the court (including any evidence it decides to hear on the matter), that no court or instrument panel could reasonably find it to be true8. Therefore given the similarities between the previous incident and the current one it is likely that this information will be allowed to be admitted into the current proceedings. The reason for this is that the evidence can all be considered to be important explanatory evidence or alternatively that it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution6.Xs previous conviction of ExposureThe CJA 2003 contains a dedicated scheme of rules to regulate the admissibility of evidence of the accuseds extraneous misconduct in s101(1)In cruel proceedings evidence of the defendants bad character is admissible if, but only if all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it,It is important explanatory evidence,It is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecutionIt has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,It is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, ofThe defendant has made an attack on another persons characterTherefore this evidence can be admitted by agreement by the parties however this is unlikely. Therefore it is likely that the prosecution will attempt to admit the evidence under sections c and d and this are provisions, which are concerned with similar fact evidence. One significant dimension of the similar facts cases concerned the dangers posed by deliberate collusion between witnesses or innocent cross-contamination of their evidence.In determining the admissibility of evidence of the accuseds misconduct in the first instance, however, section 109 obliges the court to treat the evidence as true, unless it appears, on the basis of any material before the court (including any evidence it decides to hear on the matter), that no court or jury could reasonably find it to be true9.Section 107 where evidence of the accuseds bad character has been admitted into the trial without the accuseds agreement, under section 101(1) paragraphs (c)-(g), and the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the prosecutions case that (i) that evidence is begrime such that (ii) a conviction would be unsafe, the court must every direct the jury to acquit the defendant of this offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a retrial, discharge the jury. Either way, proceedings will not be allowed to c ontinue if it emerges during the course of the trial that material evidence of bad character has been begrime.A previous conviction can be admitted as evidence of propensity if it falls into any (i) one of the categories of offences or (ii) the bidding of the offence in a written charge or bill of indictment would be the same. Thus, a person who has been convicted of actual bodily harm and is without delay charged with actual bodily harm will fall into the southward category (same description)-but a person who has been convicted of theft and is now charged with burglary would not. However, the radix Office will introduce two sets of categories of offences-the first broadly comprising all Theft Act offences, the second comprising sexual offences involving sexual contact with children.Therefore given the similarities between the previous incident and the current one it is likely that this information will be allowed to be admitted into the current proceedings. The reason for th is is that the evidence can either be considered to be important explanatory evidence or alternatively that it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution7.Directing the JuryBecause of the statutory grounding of the criminal evidence rules the rules on directing the jury, in relation to similar fact evidence and evidence of bad character have altered somewhat. The provisions that we are concerned with here are contained within Section 107 where evidence of the accuseds bad character has been admitted into the trial without the accuseds agreement, under section 101(1) paragraphs (c)-(g), and the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the prosecutions case that (i) that evidence is contaminated such that (ii) a conviction would be unsafe, the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of this offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a retrial, discharge the jury. Either way, proceedings will not be allowed t o continue if it emerges during the course of the trial that material evidence of bad character has been contaminated.Finally, there is a power for the court to discharge the jury and either direct an acquittal or order a retrial if a judge, having admitted evidence of bad character, later decides that such evidence was contaminated. Contamination is outlined in terms of evidence that is false or misleading in any respect, as a result of the witness who gave the evidence either having agreed to give false evidence, or being affected by hearing other evidence in the case. It seems these provisions are aimed oddly at allegations of multiple sexual abuse where other allegations are, on occasion, felt up to be the consequence of collaboration by different witnesses. In such cases it would be open to the judge to cure the problem by tutelage to the jury, but where it is felt that direction is inadequate and any subsequent conviction would be unsafe, the judge is empowered to discharge the jury.In conclusion therefore if the judge is satisfied with the evidence and there is no evidence of contamination or collusion then this evidence of the defendants previous bad character will be admitted.BibliographyLegislationCriminal Justice Act 2003BooksDennis I, (2002) The Law of Evidence, Sweet and MaxwellHuxley P OConnell M, (2004) Statutes on Evidence, Oxford University take the fieldMcEwan J, (1998) Evidence and the Adversarial Process, Hart Publishing tapper C, (2003) Cross and Tapper on Evidence, Oxford University PressZuckermann A Roberts P, (2004) Criminal Evidence, Oxford University Press1Footnotes1 S100 (1) (C)2 DPP v Boardman 1975 AC 421 HL3 DPP v P 1991 2 AC 447 at 4604 S100 (1) (C)5 S100 (1) (C)6 S100(2)7 S100(4)8 S 109 (2)9 S 109 (2)