Cases With Multiple Charges

[cameronmorgan187]

If you are in court accused of multiple charges against multiple accusers for example (Rolf Harris, DLT, Max Clifford etc), how is fairness guaranteed if each case is presented in front of the same jury.

I know evidence and witnesses play a big part in each individual case, but what stops the jury thinking, well if he's done one he must have done them all and what (if anything) stops the prosecution saying, "he's accused of doing this to person A, so he must have done it to person B" etc

Thanks

C

[cameronmorgan187]

I mean, by multiple accusers not against

[sandyRoe]

The jury would have been asked by the judge to consider the evidence presented by each individual accuser.

[EDDIE51]

They consider each case separately. For example in a case with multiple charges the defendant could get a not guilty on some and a guilty on the others.
DLT was found not guilty on all except 2 charges. But the jury was could not agree on the last 2 charges so he will be retried on those 2 alone.

[New Judge]

In some of the recent trials involving celebrities and historical sexual allegations the prosecution has relied on the quantity of allegations rather than the quality of any individual one. There stance to the jury has been "you surely cannot believe that all of these alleged victims are mistaken".

I have profound misgivings about this approach. In the normal course of events juries (or a bench of magistrates) would not know of previous convictions or accompanying allegations when considering a single offence. Very strict rules are in place if the prosecution wants to show "propensity" to commit particular offences. But in these cases it seems that the juries are being bombarded with large numbers of alleged victims and even with careful direction from the judge I am very unsure that they are not swayed by the sheer quantity of charges that the defendants face.

[Peter Pedant]

New Judge can clarify....

There are rules about " bad character " evidence. The judge has to give permission for this to be adduced, and that accounts for some witnesses in some of the cases giving evidence about events which are not part of the charges.

and the similar evidence rule....
of a whole jigsaw, pieces 1-4 are given by one witness and 4-8 by a second and 8-10 by a third
and magically by the similar evidence rule - a whole is constructed from it !
Bitterly resented by defence counsel who complain that 'evidence is being made up' which kinda they have a point.

used a lot in sex cases.....

and so clumping cases/charges together is in the prosecutions interests.


This is why you hire criminal lawyers to plead cases on your behalf.

[New Judge]

Yes Peter, it's the "bad character" aspect that disturbs me.

On comes prosecution witness - alleged victim number one. Her of his evidence is heard. Number two tells of a different incident but similar in nature. Number three likewise. And so it goes on. By the time number ten arrives the jury must be thinking " He's done this before (numbers one to nine). They can't all be telling lies." etc.

Any one of these accusations would not stand a chance. It's different to a number of witnesses relating parts of a single incident to the court. They are different allegations and the quantity of charges must influence a jury beyond what is fair.

[EDDIE51]

^^ Very true NJ and a point I had not thought of. In these 'historic sex abuse' cases the individual incidents would never stand a chance of a conviction.
Don't see what we can do about it though.

[cameronmorgan187]

Thanks for your insights, very interesting.

You mention "bad character", apart from the other allegations (in a case with multiple charges) do previous offences count as "bad character" evidence too and should they be if they are?

In general, just because you did something once, doesn't mean you've done it this time?

[New Judge]

"Bad character" evidence became admissible in courts in the UK following the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It usually relates to previous convictions (though some other types of behaviour are also covered). It is only admissible if it passes one of seven "gateway" tests but it can be adduced both in respect of a defendant and also a witness. You are quite right - just because you've done something once does not, in law anyway, make it more likely that you will do it again. However the gateway tests clarify what a court can assume as "propensity" to commit a particular type of crime. More details, including the "gateway" tests are available here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bad_character_evidence/

[Peter Pedant]

// just because you've done something once does not, in law anyway, make it more likely that you will do it again //
hmm statistically it does tho'

Bad character rule = similar evidence

or are they different ? thx

[cameronmorgan187]

Does Bad Character Evidence have to be factual/proven and what's the difference between "Bad Character" and "Hearsay" evidence if any.

[New Judge]

Normally in a criminal trial the jury or bench of magistrates cannot be told of the defendant's previous record before they consider their verdict. However, with the introduction of the "Bad Character" (BC) provisions they may be told (under strict criteria and only under one of the seven "gateways" I mentioned in my earlier answer). This essentially is evidence that which is not related to the offence or incident itself but to an individual involved in the proceedings - usually the defendant but sometimes a witness. In the case of the defendant the prosecution might want to introduce BC evidence in the form of the defendant's previous record. For example, "He is an habitual shoplifter; he has 99 precious convictions for theft from a shop; he has a propensity to commit this type of crime and his record demonstrates that. You should take this into account when deciding your verdict". They may also want to introduce it on the basis that he has a tendency to tell lies and so cast doubt on his version of events. You can read all the circumstances and the tests for BC Evidence to be admitted in the link that I provided but my brief summary above probably explains it well enough.

The admission of BC evidence is a matter for the judge (in the Crown Court) or the Magistrates (in the Magistrates Court). In the lower court the BC application is usually heard before a different bench of Magistrates to avoid the problem of the trial bench hearing of BC, refusing to admit it and then having to "put it from their minds" when deliberating. There are no hard and fast rules but as I said earlier, a single conviction is unlikely to lead to BC evidence being allowed. Any application has to be backed up by facts - the prosecuting lawyer simply disliking the look of somebody is not sufficient.

How this ties in with this question is this: in these cases of multiple offences the jury is effectively hearing evidence of the defendant's alleged bad character by stealth. They hear the first witness's allegations (on which they must later decide) then the second, who describes a similar but unrelated incident, then the third and so on. By the time they reach number ten their minds must be poisoned with the evidence of the earlier nine witnesses. They have heard of the defendant's - albeit unsubstantiated at that stage - bad character. The defendant has not been given the benefit of the protections under the bad character provisions.

"Hearsay" evidence is something completely different. It is "second hand" evidence. Witness A sees defendant D hit victim V. Witness A can provide first hand evidence of the incident. Witness A's friend, F, did not see the incident but witness A tells friend F that he saw D hit V. If called to give evidence Friend F can only say that A told him that D hit V. That is hearsay evidence ("somebody told me...") and is not usually admissible in criminal proceedings.

[cameronmorgan187]

Thank you, great answer.