FiltersDone

Question type

Essay

Multiple Choice

Short Answer

True False

Matching

Exam 10: Character Evidence

Show Answer

Share

---

All types

Filters

Study Flashcards

Question 1

True/False

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

The similar fact rule was upheld by the Government in S99 CJA 2003. Due to the uneven application surrounding the similar fact rule, it was abolished in 2003 by the Criminal Justice Act, S.99.

A) True
B) False

Correct Answer

verified

False

Question 2

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Which case held that there were two 'limbs' to a good character direction which the judge should issue to the jury? In this case, the two limbs relate to the credibility and the propensity of the defendant. The fact that they are of good character will mean the judge must direct t

A) R v Rowton
B) R v Redgrave
C) R v Vye
D) R v Gray

E) A) and B)
F) A) and C)

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 3

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

When will a judge direct a jury to acquit the defendant in areas of bad character evidence? Under S107 CJA 2003, a judge may either direct the jury to acquit the defendant , or will dishcarge the jury if there ought to be a retrial.

The court has a discretion to exclude bad character evidence, if it appears the admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings. S101 (3) + (4) gives the court discretion under S101 (1)

Evidence can be adduced into court relating to the bad character of a non-defendant witness. Section 100 CJA 2003.

Evidence of a defedants bad character is always admissible. It is only admissible if one of the gateways in S101 (1) CJA 2003 applies.

According to R v Hanson (2005) what three requirements did the court set out when the Crown is seeking to adduce evidence to establish their propensity to commit similar crimes to which they have alreayd committed? 1) Did the history of his convictions establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged? 2) Did that propensity make it more likely that the defendant had committed the offence charged? 3) Was it unjust to

The definition of bad character can now be found under which statute? S98 defines bad character for both witnesses and defendants.

In which of the situations is the bad character evidence NOT admissible? S105 (6) - Admissible is only admissible under this section only it goes no further than is necessary to correct a false a impression. E.g If D gives an impression he is an upstanding member of society, convictions for any offence will be admissible to correct that false impression.

Unproven behaviour may be held to be bad character. In R v Edwards, the evidence of allegations that did not go to trial because of abuse of process was considered bad chanracter and subject to admissibility under S101 (1)

A defendant can he argue he did not commit the crime he is charged with by adducing evidence that he was committing another crime elsewhere S101

S101 (1) (a) is the simplest way for bad character of the defendant to be admissible. This section covers scenarios where all parties agree to the evidence being admissible. The defence will rarely allow this to happen as the evidence will have a damaging impact on the reputation of the defendant.

When will evidence be admissible under S101 (1) (c) ? The evidence, according to S102 , will be admissible as 'important explanatory evidence, it without it, the factfinder would find it impossible to understnad other evidence in the case.

A judges discretion to exclude bad character evidence under S101 (3) and S101 (4) relates to which gateways of admissibility only? The courts can exclude the evidence if admissible becasue it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the def and prosecution, or if the def makes a an attack onanother person's character if it appears the admissibility would have an adverse ffect on the fairness of the court proceedings.

According to R v Hanson (2005) what three requirements did the court set out when the Crown is seeking to adduce evidence to establish their propensity to commit similar crimes to which they have alreayd committed? 1) Did the history of his convictions establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged? 2) Did that propensity make it more likely that the defendant had committed the offence charged? 3) Was it unjust to

Who does S101 (g) apply to ? Evidence is only admissible under S101 (1) (g) if the def has made a personal attack on another , and if itevidence seeks to rebut the defendant's incorrect evidence.