Parliament's function within the legislation, as we divine it in the terms of the Act, was to help inside the evidence based conviction from the guilty, without the need of putting those who are not guilty at risk of conviction by prejudice' (R v Hanson [2005] Two Cr App R 21, Rose LJ at [4]).
In light of the around statement, evaluate the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the relevant case law under the Act, regarding attack on another's character.
Sections 98 to 113 on the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) represent a essential adjust from the accepted favorite law method towards methods by which adverse character evidence could be introduced inside the course of criminal trial proceedings. Notwithstanding the criticisms directed against the legislation from a number of quarters, an objective appraisal from the provisions themselves and also the judicial interpretations provided due to the fact the passage in the CJA confirms that to a large degree, the observations of Rose LJ noted inside title as to Parliament’s function are accurate. As importantly, the evidentiary regime established in the CJA strikes a fair and fundamental balance among the principles of reasonable doubt, the proper from the defendant to build full answer and defence to a criminal charge, and the societal interest from the potent prosecution of crime.
This paper commences with an overview of the most important changes for the previous law regarding negative character which are now established by the CJA. The technique contemplated by the joint effect with the CJA provisions as well as the Criminal Process Rules (CPR) can also be regarded as and evaluated. The paper then provides an examination with the principles that aid the admissibility of damaging character evidence with regards to defendant and non-defendant witnesses, from the seven particular ‘gateways’ for these kinds of evidence as defined by the CJA given specific consideration. The cases decided simply because 2004 and relevant academic commentaries are also highlighted.
There are three specific aspects to the CJA regime that aid the offer analysis and require particular attention in this regard. These are:
The abolition on the well-known law rules that previously governed this kind of admissibility and also the prior rules provided in the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 concerning the cross-examination of defendants as to character
Evidence of adverse character with regards to a non-defendant is admissible by leave in the court on particular grounds
Evidence of the defendant’s negative character is normally admissible on a wider number of prospective trial issues, by virtue from the seven particular ‘gateways’ established by the CJA
There's no question how the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Part 11 represents a fundamental alteration of prior English law concerning the general admissibility of damaging character evidence. Placed in an admittedly restricted nutshell, the prior law confirmed how the prosecution could not adduce evidence in the defendant's damaging character (other than evidence about the offence charged or offences against the administration of justice committed in relation towards offence charged). The prosecution was also prohibited from leading evidence in the defendant's propensity to commit criminal acts even if relevant on the charge. In this way, the previous unfavorable character evidence rules had been an exception to the general rule that all relevant evidence is admissible in a criminal trial. The conventional caveat advanced in this respect that justified the exclusion of evidence of unfavorable character was that it is always irrelevant to the proof of the defendant’s guilt; insofar as it is relevant, its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
The reworking of the law within the CJA commences in the definition of adverse character provided at s.98 and s.112. You'll find two particular ingredients during the definition. Damaging character evidence might include any evidence of misconduct or a “disposition” towards the misconduct; it may perhaps also include misconduct established via evidence on the “…commission of an offence or other reprehensible conduct”.
Subject to unique procedures that governed the admissibility of ‘similar fact’ evidence that also may well have provided the basis for unfavorable character evidence being admitted against a defendant, the case law that has subsequently interpreted the admittedly broad expressions ‘misconduct’ and ‘reprehensible conduct’ as applied within the CJA has given every phrase a sensible meaning. If the entire purpose of criminal evidence rules can be summarised as achieving the balance in between personalized rights to full defence and the interest with the country as contended in the paper’s opening paragraph, the case law achieves this purpose. In Weir, the Court of Appeal determined that the propensity to commit crime on a part of an accused could be proven with reference on the defendant’s commission of other crimes, but the prosecution could establish propensity by other means. The ‘other means’ have been fleshed out during the other case law, for example Renda, where the Court ruled that a prosecution witness may be cross-examined about incidents of misconduct identified for the defendant which had by no means themselves been the subject of the criminal charge.
It is contended that a higher breadth afforded judicial discretion to admit damaging character doesn't improperly impair the defence so significantly as it ensures a greater quantity of relevant evidence might be regarded by the court. This discretion is placed inside a procedural construct that has proven fascinating inside the pretty brief life with the CJA provisions. The prosecution is needed to supply the defendant a minimum of 14 days notice of its intention to introduce adverse character evidence at trial; the defendant has the opportunity to object ahead of the tendering on the proposed evidence and also a ruling will likely be obtained accordingly. The method applies to negative character evidence proposed by the prosecution and this sort of evidence a defendant proposes to call with respect to a co-defendant.
These rules obtain a couple of significant benefits not necessarily guaranteed under the former regime wherever applications of this nature have been regularly permitted to be made by trail judges in the trial proper. The defence is not surprised or in any way caught unawares by the prosecution software program to rely on unfavorable character evidence. Inside a method of justice that historically exhibited reluctance to offer full disclosure in the entire situation relied upon by the prosecution in advance of trial, this Rule is often a really certain development that promotes the overarching principle of procedural fairness. The secondary benefit achieved via this method is often a more focused trial. Jurors and witnesses should expect that they shall attend a proceeding that will not be diverted inside orderly calling of evidence by virtue of unexpected motions brought to resolve questions of admissibility which could be resolved efficiently at the pre-trial software package stage.
Further, the notice provisions provided inside the CJA and also the Rules of Criminal Process permit all parties to create appropriate enquiries in advance of trial concerning the intended evidence. In this important sense, the relevance in the evidence can also be buttressed or challenged in a thorough and potent way wherever appropriate.
The distinction inside the treatment of damaging character evidence that pertains to non-defendants and defendants is confirmed in s. 100 CJA. It's important to note how the often problematic evidentiary rules in regards to the cross-examination of a sexual assault complainant are excluded within the operation from the CJA in this respect. It is contended that this exception will be the one significant dilemma revealed by the revisions. The particular provisions that have been enacted to govern the admissibility of prior sexual history evidence have attracted critical attention. For example, there's a legitimate must make certain that a defendant in a sexual offence prosecution is not permitted to equate the simple fact that a woman did not make complaint with regards to his conduct at an earlier time in the conclusion how the offer complaint need to be false. Criminal trials should not be determined on the basis of ‘rape myths’ or stereotypical notions of how a rape victim need to behave. However, it would be preferable that all criminal evidence be evaluated while using same criteria. The CJA framework is entirely suited to prevent the introduction of such evidence once the ‘gateway’ principles are applied; particular consideration for particular offences undermines the cohesiveness of the law.
In all other respects, the language applied in s. 100 section provides the clearest possible demarcation between the permitted approaches towards tendering of non-defendant unfavorable character evidence. Only in which the proposed evidence is critical explanatory evidence, or where the evidence is directed to an difficulty in the proceedings and it's of significant value to the presentation of the situation as a whole may perhaps it be admitted. The section provides amplification over a definition on the phrase ‘important explanatory evidence’ as evidence with no which the jury would discover the situation hard or impossible to understand (all emphasis added).
A semantic criticism could be made that the use of ‘difficult’ and ‘impossible’ within the same definitional expression is clumsy and may perhaps bring about inconsistency given the several each word provides like a condition precedent to admissibility. However, the underlying philosophy inherent from the section is sound. Unfavorable character evidence that relates to non-defendant’s need to be pre-screened by the trial judge to ensure its relevance and to give higher assurance how the trial process just isn't distracted inside consideration of essential evidence. The subsequent situation law has properly limited ‘misconduct’ evidence to exclude an arrest on a criminal charge; the section imposes a higher test with respect on the introduction of a non-defendant’s damaging character than does the test for ones introduction of a defendant’s bad character.
Prospective damaging character evidence relating to a defendant is potentially admissible via one or additional with the seven procedural ‘gateways’ established in s. 101 (1) CJA. Every provision includes a valid trial fairness objective; for example, negative character admitted on consent, or these kinds of evidence led to rebut a defence attack on one more person’s character are as rooted in common sense as they are fair adjudicative principles. The gateways that restate the significance of explanatory evidence to give a simple fact situation correct context, and the conventional relevance / probative value versus prejudicial test created from the favorite law warrant additional examination in this regard. They are probably the most crucial as well as the most litigated provisions during the gateway structure.
Edwards provides a interesting instance of how a court will assess how crucial background evidence must be for the understanding of the entire case. In this decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed that to your jury to properly understand the nuance of the heroin trafficking transaction, evidence could possibly be known as by the prosecution to explain how these kinds of transactions proceeded if they were to understand why a witness mentioned that they could identify the defendant.
Relevance to an critical matter in between the defence as well as the prosecution as described in s. 101 (1) (d) CJA just isn't restricted towards the defendant’s alleged propensity to commit the subject crime or crime generally. The provision represents a barrier towards the prosecution to call these kinds of evidence if it's not central to its chief purpose. For example, although the previous popular law based limitations on a tendering of a defendant’s criminal record was often regarded highly prejudicial towards the prosecution, the revisions enacted in the CJA provisions do not countenance the wholesale introduction of these kinds of evidence, notwithstanding how attractive the evidence might be for the prosecution inside context of its need to make the most of its position.
Campbell is a choice that underscores why the CJA provisions strike the correct balance among defendant interests and the jury’s capacity to fairly decide the case. The trial judge in Campbell permitted the jury to hear evidence from the defendant’s 2 prior convictions without the need of permitting them to hear any other background into people earlier events. It is not surprising that after the judge’s charge on the jury, this question was asked by the jury, “What was the value of revealing the defendant’s two previous assault convictions? One thing else we ought to know?’’The introduction of a criminal conviction alone absent details that provides context to the events that led to the previous entry may perhaps trigger a skewed understanding on the defendant that prejudices the defence position; the approved course by virtue of Campbell is that the jury ought to be warned not to attach as well a lot pounds to adverse character evidence, permit alone conclude how the defendant is guilty since of his adverse character.
The substantial probative value requirement for negative character evidence as confirmed in s. 101 (1) (e) reinforces the conventional bedrock proposition of criminal evidence admissibility – judges need to make sure how the probative significance exceeds its prejudicial effect. By placing this important principle inside the seven avenue evidentiary gateway, the CJA achieves a comprehensive effect in regards to the admissibility and proper evaluation of unfavorable character evidence how the prior pastiche of favorite law principles and circumstance driven exceptions could by no means achieve.
When all of the provisions discussed around are taken together, a clear picture is drawn on the more than all effect of the CJA with respect towards admissibility of bad character evidence. The law has been produced more certain, but not at the expense of trial or procedural fairness. Relevance and probative importance are given their due, as well as the capacity in the defence to counter evidence that passes the CJA standards is unimpaired by its approach as contained in sections 98 to 113.
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!
