Principles and procedures to admit and exclude evidence - Court's powers to exclude bad character evidence

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

Admitting bad character evidence in criminal trials is a critical part of UK law, impacting the fairness of proceedings and the rights of defendants. For those preparing for the SQE1 FLK2 exam, it’s vital to grasp this topic. This article explores the legal framework for handling bad character evidence, focusing on admission and exclusion principles and the court's discretion in such matters. We will look at how the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) come into play, along with relevant case law and practical applications.

Legal Framework: CJA 2003 and PACE 1984

What is Bad Character Evidence?

Bad character evidence includes any information about a defendant's past misconduct that isn't directly related to the current charge. This might involve previous convictions, uncharged actions, or other conduct that could influence a jury’s view.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003: A New Approach

The CJA 2003 revised the traditional approach, which typically excluded bad character evidence to prevent prejudice. The Act establishes guidelines to weigh its importance against potential unfairness.

The Seven Paths to Admissibility

The CJA 2003 outlines seven specific routes for allowing bad character evidence:

  1. Agreement by All Parties (s.100(1)(a)): When both sides agree to admit the evidence.

  2. Evidence Offered by the Defendant (s.101(1)(b)): Where the defendant introduces their own past misconduct.

  3. Important Explanatory Evidence (s.101(1)(c)): Needed to clarify other evidence in the case.

  4. Relevant to a Major Issue (s.101(1)(d)): Related to key topics like the defendant's tendency for certain behaviors or honesty.

  5. Strong Probative Value on a Key Issue (s.101(1)(e)): Especially for co-defendants with heightened evidence value.

  6. Evidence to Amend a False Impression (s.101(1)(f)): Correcting any misleading impressions made by the defendant.

  7. Defendant’s Attack on Someone Else’s Character (s.101(1)(g)): Allowing a response when the defendant critiques another person's character.

Case Study: R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824

In this case, the Court of Appeal set guidelines for using pathway (d), including a three-step test:

  1. Does a pattern of past convictions show a tendency for the charged offenses?
  2. Is this tendency relevant to the issue at trial?
  3. Is it fair to rely on these previous offenses?

This test calls for a careful review of each piece of evidence.

Court's Powers to Exclude Bad Character Evidence: Section 78 of PACE 1984

Even with the framework from CJA 2003, courts have broad discretion to exclude evidence per Section 78 of PACE 1984 if it would harm the fairness of the trial.

Judicial Discretion Considerations

Judges weigh several considerations under Section 78:

  • The evidence's importance
  • Possible prejudice
  • Relevance to the case
  • Time since the character issue occurred
  • Evidence reliability

Case Study: R v Highton [2005] EWCA Crim 1985

This case stressed that even admissible evidence must be balanced to avoid unfair influence on the trial. The decision highlighted:

"The judge must consider the fairness impact of admitting the evidence... The greater the evidence's value, the less likely its inclusion will cause unfairness to proceedings."

Practical Examples and Applications

Example 1: Defendant Charged with Assault

For an assault charge, the prosecution wants to include a prior assault conviction from 15 years ago under pathway (d). The defense could argue:

  1. The time lapse reduces relevance
  2. Different circumstances of the prior offense
  3. No convictions since then, indicating change
  4. Prejudice outweighs value

The court must carefully consider these factors for a fair trial.

Example 2: Defendant Charged with Fraud

In a fraud case, presenting previous similar convictions to demonstrate dishonesty needs examination of:

  1. Relatedness and pertinence of past convictions
  2. Length of time since those offenses
  3. Influence on the jury's opinion
  4. Whether it's necessary to prove the case or prejudices the trial

Example 3: Defendant's Strategic Disclosure

A defendant with a drug possession charge might reveal past use deliberately. This falls under pathway (b), where they introduce their own misconduct. The court must ensure such disclosures don’t mislead or prejudice the trial.

Conclusion

Understanding the rules for admitting and excluding bad character evidence is key for success in the SQE1 FLK2 exam and a future legal career. Key points include:

  1. The CJA 2003 outlines seven routes for allowing such evidence, each serving justice in different ways.
  2. Courts have discretion under Section 78 of PACE 1984 to exclude evidence if it risks fairness.
  3. Judicial decisions require balancing the evidence’s importance against possible prejudice.
  4. Case law like R v Hanson and R v Highton offers essential practical guidance.
  5. Both sides need to carefully evaluate the pros and cons of presenting or opposing bad character evidence.

Mastering this area of law involves understanding statutes, case decisions, and practical tactics to strike a balance between relevant evidence and keeping criminal trials fair.