Bad Character Evidence Case Study

Bad Character Evidence Case StudyThe documental of this paper is to demonstrate what a bad character evidence(BCE) is and whether Liam Parrishs(LP) BCE of previous convictions should be admitted at trial.The definition and admissibility of BC is governed by the Criminal umpire Act 2003(CJA).1 BC is determined as evidence of, or of a disposition towards misconduct or evidence of a tendency towards misconduct.2 Misconduct is defined as the explosive charge of the criminal offense or other reprehensible behaviour.3LP is a non-defendant, this is vital as the admissibility of the BCE of non-defendants is governed by s.100.4When considering what is admissible the appeal need to be aware of the danger of breaching the repair to a fair trial.5 Also, the Court is required to consider a non-exhaustive list of factors in assessing whether the character is of substantial brilliance.6Drug PossessionThe first takings is whether the offence of medicate possession go forth be regarded as BCE and whether it should be admitted at trial. It is a vital element to the case as a whole since tour Harris(AH) stated that LP was a drug dealer. This assertion was reinforced by Rose Matthewss who confirmed it in her statement as well.On the one hand, it can be argued that his conviction can be regarded as old since it was committed in 2008. As set out in s.100(3)(c)(ii) his drug conviction showed that LP was a drug dealer and this confirmed his alleged misconduct. Per Yaxley-Lennon7 drug possession can be regarded as having substantial probative think of in relation to his credibility, which is an important reveal in the case. Also, the Court when assessing the probative value of evidence should take into consideration some relevant factors.8 The older the incident, the less potential it is to show a tilt and therefore it will be inadmissible.On the contrary, the age of the conviction can illustrate how long LP has been dealing with drugs. Therefore, his conviction can be r egarded of substantial grandeur to the context of the case as a whole. As drug dealers often find themselves surrounded by dangerous people. LP alleged that did not see who his assailant was, so its a possibility that he may be attacked by someone else rather than AH.Therefore, LP previous conviction of drug possession is much likely to be admissible as it has a substantial probative value in relation to something which is both a matter in issue in the proceedings and is of substantial sizeableness in the context of the case as a whole.9AssaultThe second issue is whether LPs previous conviction for assault could be admitted. This is potentially formed part of the chain of past misconduct which might establish a trend to commit similar offences. Therefore, propensity to commit this figure of offence may be a matter in issue between prosecution and defence.10It could be admitted under s.100(1)(b) as it is a matter in issue and his propensity to be violent has a probative value. I n Braithwaite11 the Court held that BCE in relation to the witnesses was relevant both to their propensity to act aggressively and to their credibility.12 So, in this case, LPs assault conviction may show a propensity to act aggressively as well. Thus, it would be a matter in issue to establish whether AHs statements were true. There are similarities between AHs statements (when he stated in the police interview that LP tried to hurt Rose) and the conviction itself.This could be regarded as actually important as to a matter in issue with substantial probative value that LP has a propensity to be violent. Moreover, the fact that the conviction is youthful makes it more likely to be admissible.13CredibilityThe propensity to untruthfulness may be a matter in issue between the prosecution and the defendant.14 Credibility will always be an issue to some extent in any prosecution.15 In the case ofGoddard16 was established that only convictions of probative value and of substantial impo rtance could be admitted.As shown by the facts, LP had pleaded not guilty unsuccessfully to be acting in self-defence to an unprovoked attack. However, his argument was dismissed by the Court and it was found that LP had started the fight.Furthermore, he lied under oath for an alibi in his third conviction. Therefore, LP previous convictions can be admitted as evidence to show his propensity for untruthfulness and thus his credibility.17Credibility is an issue of substantial importance and what sort of convictions are capable of preserveing credibility can be found under s.100. In Andrew18 the Court held that under s.100(1)(b)(i) creditworthiness of a witness is an important matter in issue.19The test of creditworthiness being a matter in issue with substantial importance to the case illustrated in the leading case of Brewster.20 Pitchford LJ set out a two-stage test. Firstly, if it is shown that creditworthiness is an issue of substantial importance. The second question is whether the BC relied upon is of substantial probative value in relation to that issue.21 The test for whether previous convictions have probative value on the issue of creditworthiness will depend on the number, nature and age of the convictions.22Applying this normal to LPs creditworthiness, the conviction of preventing the course of justice and the fact that he pleaded not guilty should be admitted since is an issue of substantial importance. The convictions were relevant to credibility in the wider sense that they would affect a fair-minded jurys assessment of the standing of the witness.23ConclusionSince LP is deceased, to examine his character the jury should be entitled to looked LPs convictions as cumulatively to get a more complete picture of LPs character.24The strongest argument is the intervening of justice conviction for two reasons. It is a recent conviction and it has direct effect on LP creditworthiness. The weakest point is LPs drug conviction as it is from 2008. However, it was illustrated that it can be argued to show how long LP has been dealing with drugs.BibliographyPrimary Sources defer of casesR v Andrew S 2006 EWCA Crim 1303R v Anthony Weir Others 2005 EWCA Crim 2886R v Brewster Cromwell 2010 2 Cr App R 20R v Campbell2007 1 WLR 2798Regina v Leigh Goddard 2007 EWCA Crim 3134Table of Legislation UKCriminal Justice Act 2003Table of Legislation EUEuropean Convention on Human Rights 1950Secondary SourcesBooksDurston G., Evidence (2nd edn, Oxford University thrust 2011)Glover R and Murphy P., Murphy On Evidence (14th edn, Oxford University Press 2015)Munday R., Evidence (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2015)Journal Articles Blair S., Criminal Procedure 2016 SHRJ 721 Criminal Justice Act 2003.2 Ibid, s.98.3 Ibid, s.112 (1).4 Ibid, s.100.5 European Convention on Human Rights 1950, Article 6.6 Ibid, s.100 (3).7 R v Anthony Weir Others 2005 EWCA Crim 2886.8 Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.100 (3) (b).9 Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.100 (1) (b).10 Cri minal Justice Act 2003, s.103 (1) (a).11 R v Braithwaite 2010 EWCA Crim 1082.12 Ibid, 13 (Lord Justice Hughes).13 Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.100(3).14 Ibid, s.101 (1) (d).15 R v Campbell 2007 1 WLR 2798.16 Regina v Leigh Goddard 2007 EWCA Crim 3134, 13 (Lord Justice Gage).17 Gregory Durston, Evidence (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2011) 179.18 R v Andrew S 2006 EWCA Crim 1303.19 Ibid, 7 (Lord Justice Laws).20 R v Brewster Cromwell 2010 2 Cr App R 20.21 Ibid, 23 (Lord Justice Pitchford).22 Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.100 (3).23 R v Brewster Cromwell 2010 2 Cr App R 20, 24.24 Scott Blair, Criminal Procedure 2016 SHRJ 72, 6.