A judge had not erred in admitting evidence of an individual’s previous conviction for possessing an indecent image of a child in his trial for rape and sexual assault of a child. It was admissible as evidence relevant to an issue in the case, namely his inappropriate sexual interest in young girls.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER BASIS OF PLEA CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PREVIOUS CONVICTION RELATED TO INSTANT ALLEGATIONS PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS RAPE OF CHILD UNDER 13 SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13
A judge receiving fresh prosecution evidence during the course of a trial might have put undue pressure on a defendant to change his plea by indicating that he would give a reasonable amount of credit if he did so. However, the incident could not lay the foundation for an allegation of bias because the defendant had continued to maintain his innocence and the judge had continued to conduct the trial entirely fairly.
ADMISSIBILITY BIAS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FALSE IMPRISONMENT FRESH EVIDENCE JUDGE RECEIVING FRESH EVIDENCE INDICATING REASONABLE CREDIT WOULD BE GIVEN IF DEFENDANT CHANGED PLEA JUDICIAL INDICATIONS JURY DIRECTIONS PROPENSITY SEXUAL ASSAULT SUMMING UP WHETHER JUDGE BIASED
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.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) EVIDENCE OF PROPENSITY GUILTY PLEAS GUILTY PLEAS TO OFFENCES CONCERNING INDECENT IMAGES OF CHILDREN ADDUCED IN SUBSEQUENT TRIAL FOR INDECENT ASSAULT INDECENT ASSAULT INDECENT IMAGES OFFENCES POST-DATING ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN PROPENSITY s.101(3) s.103(1)(a)
Possible confusion caused by conflicting good and bad character directions to the jury was sufficient to make an appellant’s conviction for attempting to abduct a child unsafe.
ATTEMPTED ABDUCTION OF CHILD ATTEMPTS CHARACTER CHILD ABDUCTION CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EFFECT OF CONFLICTING GOOD AND BAD CHARACTER DIRECTIONS ON SAFETY OF CONVICTION EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.8 HUMAN RIGHTS INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE s.101(3) s.112 SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
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 poisoning was unsafe.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2005 r.3.10(h) EFFECT OF ADMISSION OF DISPUTED BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE ON LENGTH OF TRIAL JURY DIRECTIONS LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 s.74(3) r.1.1(2)(e) r.1.2(1)(a) r.3.5(2)(b) r.31.1(2) RAPE ALLEGATIONS s.101 s.101(1) s.101(1)(b) s.101(1)(c) s.101(1)(f) s.101(1)(g) s.101(3) s.103 s.103(1)(a) s.107 s.78 SEXUAL OFFENCES TRIAL OF SATELLITE ISSUES
Where a judge had given a direction to the jury that it was not to convict the defendant only on the basis of his similar previous conviction and, looking at the matter overall, the judge had properly admitted evidence of the previous conviction under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(g).
ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS CONVICTION UNDER S.101(1)(G) CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 APPROPRIATENESS OF ADMISSION IN LIGHT OF RELEVANT JURY DIRECTION CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GUILTY PLEAS JURY DIRECTIONS PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS s.101(1)(g) s.101(3) s.101(4) s.103 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003
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.
ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSIBILITY OF OLD CONVICTIONS FOR OFFENCES SIMILAR TO OFFENCE CHARGED BAD CHARACTER CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) EVIDENCE AS TO PROPENSITY PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PROPENSITY s.101 s.103(1)(a) s.103(2) s.103(3) s.225 s.229 SEXUAL ASSAULT SPENT CONVICTIONS
Please use the form below to make contact. Your email will be responded to promptly (we endeavour to respond to all email enquiries within one hour). Alternatively, you can call Stephen's firm, Twelve Tabulae Limited, on +44 (0) 203 846 5801.