What is bad character application?
A bad character application is required whenever the prosecution or defence wish to rely on bad character evidence, unless the prosecution and all defendants agree between them that the evidence can be used.
What is the legal position once bad character evidence has been admitted in evidence?
Once admitted, the weight to be attached to bad character evidence is a matter for the jury, subject to the judge’s power to stop a case where the evidence is contaminated (see section 107 – below). Once evidence has been admitted through one of the gateways, it can be used for any purpose for which it is relevant.
Is evidence of bad character admissible?
Evidence of the defendant’s bad character is admissible where it is relevant to the question of whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the same kind with which he is charged or a propensity to be untruthful.
What is bad character evidence law?
Definition. Bad character evidence is evidence of, or a disposition towards misconduct; other than evidence which has to do with the alleged facts of the offense with which the defendant is charged or is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence.
What does a person of bad character mean?
in criminal law, a person’s likelihood to commit a crime, or details of crimes they have already committed. Details of bad character are admissible at some trials. Synonyms and related words. Reputation.
In what circumstances might a defendant want to adduce his own bad character?
A co-defendant may wish to adduce evidence of a defendant’s bad character if his defence is, for example, that it was the defendant, rather than himself, who was responsible for the offence.
Can you mention previous convictions in court?
During the trial of a criminal charge, reference to previous convictions (and therefore to spent convictions) can arise in a number of ways. However, it is worth bearing in mind that court proceedings are exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders, and can therefore disclose spent convictions (subject to above).
What is another word for bad character?
What is another word for bad character?
| scoundrel | rogue |
|---|---|
| wrongdoer | lawbreaker |
| outlaw | villain |
| baddie | crook |
| miscreant | knave |
When can you use character evidence?
4. When character evidence is admissible, Rule 405 says that “it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion.” It may not proved through evidence of specific events that illustrate the character trait in action.
Can you introduce new evidence in a trial?
Yes, in your hypothetical case, the plaintiff can introduce new evidence and called undisclosed witnesses at trial in two typical scenarios.
Can a bad character application be used at trial?
This contains various grounds upon which, or what are often referred to as ‘gateways’ through which, bad character evidence can be presented as evidence at trial. One or more gateways can be used. A Bad Character Application is required, specifying which gateway or gateways are relied upon.
Can you use bad character evidence in a sexual offence case?
Section 100 does not permit bad character evidence to be introduced which relates to the sexual history of complainants in cases involving sexual offences (e.g. convictions for prostitution), which is prohibited under section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, except in limited circumstances. .
How is bad character defined in the Criminal Justice Act 2003?
This means that Bad Character is evidence of: which in either case do not specifically relate to the facts of the offence being tried at court, or to the investigation or prosecution of that offence. ‘Reprehensible behaviour’ is not specifically defined in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Can a jury rely on bad character evidence?
The jury will be warned against relying too heavily on bad character evidence and that bad character evidence should not be used to bolster a weak case. They will be directed that just because the defendant has previously behaved in a particular way does not prove he did so on this occasion.