ChatterBank2 mins ago
Bad Character Evidence
I'm assuming bad character is determined and agreed before the trial starts.
What sort of bad character evidence would this rule apply to:
"The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d) or (g) if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it."
Taken from CJA 2003, Section 101
What sort of bad character evidence would this rule apply to:
"The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d) or (g) if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it."
Taken from CJA 2003, Section 101
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Mickey80. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
See if the attached answers your questions Mickey
Exclusion of Bad Character evidence
http://
In applying the test the court is directed to take account, in particular, of the amount of time that has elapsed since the previous events and the current charge.
This is a stricter test than under section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which states that the court may refuse to admit the evidence, whereas section 101(3) states that the court must not admit the evidence if it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.
Exclusion of Bad Character evidence
http://
In applying the test the court is directed to take account, in particular, of the amount of time that has elapsed since the previous events and the current charge.
This is a stricter test than under section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which states that the court may refuse to admit the evidence, whereas section 101(3) states that the court must not admit the evidence if it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.
Sec 78 Pace
Unfairly Obtained Evidence
Section 78 PACE enables a court to exclude evidence which would otherwise be admissible against a defendant on the basis it would be unfair to adduce it . The nature of the courts discretion was explained by Lord Lane C.J. in the case of R v Quinn Crim L.R. 581:
"...The function of the judge is therefore to protect the fairness of the proceedings, and normally proceedings are fair if... all relevant evidence [is heard] which either side wishes to place before [ the court], but proceedings may become unfair if, for example, one side is allowed to adduce relevant evidence which, for one reason or another, the other side cannot properly challenge or meet."
Prosecutors should note that each case will turn on its own facts, and that the courts have resisted attempts to fetter their discretion - see for example R v Samuel 1988 Q.B 615 where the court held that because of the infinite variety of circumstances, it was undesirable to attempt any general guidance as to how the discretion under section 78 should be exercised.
Unfairly Obtained Evidence
Section 78 PACE enables a court to exclude evidence which would otherwise be admissible against a defendant on the basis it would be unfair to adduce it . The nature of the courts discretion was explained by Lord Lane C.J. in the case of R v Quinn Crim L.R. 581:
"...The function of the judge is therefore to protect the fairness of the proceedings, and normally proceedings are fair if... all relevant evidence [is heard] which either side wishes to place before [ the court], but proceedings may become unfair if, for example, one side is allowed to adduce relevant evidence which, for one reason or another, the other side cannot properly challenge or meet."
Prosecutors should note that each case will turn on its own facts, and that the courts have resisted attempts to fetter their discretion - see for example R v Samuel 1988 Q.B 615 where the court held that because of the infinite variety of circumstances, it was undesirable to attempt any general guidance as to how the discretion under section 78 should be exercised.
THis doc,(40 pages) although dated 2005. explains pretty well how when why etc BCE is used and shows relevant stated case law (the CPS link should show updated case law). See if this helps
http://
http://
1 to 6 of 6
Latest Posts
News9 mins ago
Family & Relationships10 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
ChatterBank28 mins ago