R v B (2011)
Evidence which was sought to be admitted under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(d) as evidence of propensity was not inadmissible simply because the behaviour it evidenced post-dated the offences being tried.
R v ROBERT SAINT (2010)
In a trial in which the defendant was charged with sexual offences, the judge had been wrong to admit “bad character” evidence suggesting that the defendant was a voyeur.
R v KEVIN O’DOWD (2009)
The erroneous admission of disputed bad character evidence by a trial judge had resulted in the trial of collateral issues which significantly contributed to the lengthening of a trial such that it had been very difficult for the jury to maintain focus. Accordingly, the conviction for rape, sexual assault, false imprisonment, threatening to kill and […]
R v (1) PK (2) TK (2008)
Appeals against convictions for numerous and various sexual offences were dismissed where the judge had correctly admitted evidence of the making of complaints under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.120(2) and evidence as to bad character, and had not misled the jury in his directions.
R v GEORGE RAYMOND WHITBY SULLY (2007)
A judge had been correct to admit a defendant’s previous convictions as bad character under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(d), despite their being over 30 years old, since they had relevant factual similarities to the offence charged and were of sufficient probative force.
R v ANDREW JAMES HUMPHRIS (2005)
The judge had been wrong to admit documents, prepared by police officers, giving details of methods used in the commission of offences of which the appellant had been previously convicted, but the appellant’s convictions for the instant offences were nevertheless safe. It was important that the formal procedures referred to in R. v Hanson (Nicky) […]