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.
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)
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.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(c) DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH SEXUAL OFFENCES PROPRIETY OF DECISION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED VOYEURISTIC CONDUCT s.101(1) s.101(1)(d) s.101(3) s.102 s.103(1) s.103(1)(a) s.103(3) s.112(1)
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
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) 141 2800504.