Introduction
Bad character evidence, as defined under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003), refers to evidence of, or a tendency towards, misconduct by a defendant or witness that is not directly related to the facts of the offence charged or to the investigation or prosecution of that offence. The admissibility of such evidence is an essential aspect of criminal proceedings, governed by Sections 98 to 113 of the CJA 2003. Section 101(1) delineates seven specific gateways through which bad character evidence may be admitted in court, establishing the legal framework that seeks to balance fairness to the defendant with the interests of justice.
Defining Bad Character Evidence
Bad character evidence includes any information indicating that a defendant or witness has engaged in misconduct, aside from evidence directly related to the offence charged or misconduct connected to its investigation or prosecution, as stipulated in Section 98 of the CJA 2003. Misconduct is defined in Section 112 of the Act as the commission of an offence or other reprehensible behavior. Determining what constitutes "reprehensible behavior" has been subject to judicial interpretation. In R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824, the Court of Appeal provided guidance, suggesting that reprehensible behavior includes conduct that is blameworthy or improper by the standards of reasonable and decent people.
The Framework of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 establishes the conditions under which bad character evidence may be admitted in criminal trials. Generally, such evidence is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the seven gateways outlined in Section 101(1). This framework seeks to ensure that the admission of bad character evidence serves the interests of justice without undue prejudice toward the defendant.
Key principles include:
- Inadmissibility as a Starting Point: Bad character evidence is not admitted unless specific conditions are met.
- Admissibility Through Gateways: Evidence may be admitted if it satisfies the criteria of one of the seven statutory gateways.
- Judicial Discretion: Courts retain the discretion to exclude evidence if its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.
The Seven Gateways for Admitting Bad Character Evidence
Section 101(1) specifies the seven gateways through which bad character evidence may be introduced. Each gateway serves a particular function and is governed by specific rules.
Gateway (a): Agreement of All Parties
Bad character evidence is admissible if all parties to the proceedings agree. This often involves strategic considerations by the defence and prosecution.
Considerations:
- Strategic Decisions: The defence may consent to the admission of prior convictions to present the defendant as forthright or to mitigate the impact of anticipated disclosures by the prosecution.
- Judicial Oversight: Even with agreement, the court may exclude the evidence if its admission would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings, pursuant to Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Gateway (b): Evidence Adduced by the Defendant
When the defendant introduces bad character evidence about himself, either through direct testimony or in response to cross-examination, it becomes admissible.
Key Points:
- Voluntary Disclosure: The defendant may choose to reveal past misconduct, perhaps to pre-empt the prosecution or to explain certain behaviors.
- Scope of Admission: Once introduced by the defendant, the prosecution may explore the evidence further, within reasonable bounds.
Illustration: A defendant charged with theft may admit to previous dishonesty offences to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility.
Gateway (c): Important Explanatory Evidence
Evidence is admissible if it is essential to understanding the context of the case.
Criteria:
- Importance: The evidence must be so significant that without it, the court or jury would find it difficult or impossible to properly understand other evidence in the case.
- Contextual Necessity: The evidence provides background information that is essential to the narrative of events.
Example: In a case involving longstanding domestic abuse, prior incidents may be necessary to explain the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the complainant.
Gateway (d): Relevant to an Important Matter in Issue Between the Defendant and the Prosecution
This gateway allows admission of evidence that is relevant to significant matters such as the defendant's tendency to commit offences of the kind charged or to be untruthful.
Application:
- Propensity Evidence: Prior convictions or misconduct demonstrating a pattern of behavior similar to the offence charged.
- Relevance and Fairness: Courts must assess whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs any prejudicial effect on the defendant.
Case Reference: In R v Hanson [2005], guidelines were established for admitting propensity evidence, emphasizing careful judicial consideration.
Gateway (e): Substantial Probative Value in Relation to an Important Matter Between Co-Defendants
In cases with multiple defendants, bad character evidence may be admitted if it has substantial probative value regarding an important issue between co-defendants.
Considerations:
- Substantial Probative Value: The evidence must significantly assist in proving a matter of importance.
- Fairness Among Defendants: The court must ensure that the admission of such evidence does not unfairly prejudice any defendant.
Example: One defendant may present evidence of another's previous violent conduct to support a defence of duress.
Gateway (f): Correcting a False Impression
If the defendant has given a false or misleading impression about himself, the prosecution may introduce evidence to correct it.
Key Points:
- Limitation to Correction: The evidence admitted must directly address the false impression and not extend beyond what is necessary.
- Defendant's Responsibility: The defendant's statements or behavior that create the false impression trigger this gateway.
Illustration: A defendant claims to be a law-abiding citizen, prompting the prosecution to introduce evidence of recent convictions to correct the misleading portrayal.
Gateway (g): Attack on Another Person's Character
When the defendant attacks the character of someone else, bad character evidence about the defendant may be admitted.
Scope:
- Nature of Attack: The defendant must have made assertions likely to affect the court's view of the other person.
- Reciprocity: By attacking others, the defendant opens himself to similar scrutiny.
Example: A defendant accuses a prosecution witness of dishonesty, allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of the defendant's own history of deceit.
Judicial Discretion and Fairness
The court's role extends beyond the mechanical application of the gateways. Judges exercise discretion to ensure that the admission of bad character evidence does not compromise the fairness of the trial.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 101(3) CJA 2003: Allows the court to exclude evidence under Gateways (d) and (g) if it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.
- Section 78 PACE 1984: Provides a general discretion to exclude prosecution evidence if its admission would have such an adverse effect.
Balancing Act:
Courts must weigh the probative value of the evidence against the potential for undue prejudice. This evaluation is essential to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
Analogy: Judges function like referees in a match, ensuring that the rules are applied fairly and that neither side gains an undue advantage.
Conclusion
The detailed framework governing the admissibility of bad character evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 necessitates a thorough understanding of the statutory gateways and their application. The seven gateways provide specific routes through which such evidence may be introduced, each with its own conditions and limitations. Key judicial principles, exemplified in cases like R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824, guide the courts in assessing factors such as propensity and relevance. For instance, Gateway (d) requires careful consideration of whether the evidence demonstrates a pattern of behavior related to the offence charged, without unduly prejudicing the defendant. Judicial discretion plays a key role in excluding evidence where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value, ensuring that the defendant's right to a fair trial is upheld. The effective application of these principles and gateways ensures that bad character evidence is admitted appropriately, contributing to the pursuit of justice while safeguarding the fairness of criminal proceedings.
