THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003

The Criminal Justice Act 2003

The Criminal Justice Act 2003

Bad Character Evidence

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 of the United Kingdom made fundamental changes to the admissibility of evidence relating to character in respect to defendants and others. The Act is far reaching, particularly section 103 which provides for the admissibility of previous convictions in support of propensity to commit like offences and untruthfulness. Bad character evidence is evidence of, or a disposition towards misconduct; other than evidence which has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged or is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence(section 98).Bad character in relation to the alleged facts offence itself has always been admissible for obvious reasons. The Act provides for different rules in relation to the bad character of defendants, and that of non-defendants. In assessing the probative value of evidence it is assumed to be true, unless there is material to suggest the contrary (section 109).

What does propensity mean? Refer to section 103(1). How is it established? Refer to section 103(2),(4) and (5)

Section 103 (1) (a) provides that this includes whether the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes, 'that kind, with which he is charged. “In accordance with section 103 (2), guidance on how such a tendency could be established. In particular, this can be done by adducing evidence that the defendant has been convicted of a crime, the same description or category, such as those for which he or she stands trial. These two words are further defined in Article 103 ( 4). The crimes are of the same description as each other, if the indictment will be prepared in the same conditions. In accordance with section 103 (4) (b) an order that certain offenses are of the same category, section 103 (5), a category under this order shall consist of the offenses of one type. (Spencer , 2005, 103)

Look for Robert Hanson, PICKSTONE and Gilmour, California, March 22, 2005, and that the court ruled. This is one of the leading case on shlyuze''D''.

Hanson was in charge of stealing money from the apartment above a pub. In circumstantial evidence links the crime to Hanson was strong. He denied the crime. It is the last line of convictions for dishonesty including houses robbery, theft from the premises, a previous conviction for robbery and aggravated vehicle taking. With the facts in this case, the Court of Appeal observed: In Gilmore, the crime of theft had been denied. In Pickstone, charges include rape and indecent assault with a step-daughter. To deny the crimes. About 9 years ago (in 1993) since have been convicted of indecent assault on 11-year-old girl. The judge admitted the criminal record of gateways D and G. He obviously took into account the length of time after the previous conviction, concluding "a person accused of sexual mores and motivations are not always affected in the course of ...