Adducing a complainant's previous convictions: non-defendant bad character (CJA 2003 s.100)
Ali Hassan is tried for assaulting Darren Hughes outside a pub in England. Ali's defence is that Darren attacked him first and he acted in self-defence. Darren has two convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm within the past three years, both arising from unprovoked attacks on strangers outside pubs. Ali's counsel wishes to cross-examine Darren about the convictions. The prosecution does not agree.
Which of the following best describes whether the convictions can be put to Darren?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: They can be put only with leave, which may be given if they have substantial probative value on a matter in issue of substantial importance in the case as a whole.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A non-defendant's bad character needs the court's leave unless all parties agree, and is admitted only as important explanatory evidence or if it has substantial probative value on an important issue.
Adducing a complainant's previous convictions: non-defendant bad character (CJA 2003 s.100)
Section 100(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 admits evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant only if it is important explanatory evidence, has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which is in issue and is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, or all parties agree. Except where all parties agree, s.100(4) requires the leave of the court. Here the prosecution does not agree, so leave is needed. Who was the aggressor is the central issue, and recent convictions for unprovoked violence in similar circumstances are capable of having substantial probative value on it. In assessing probative value the court considers factors in s.100(3), such as the nature and number of the events and when they occurred. The defence should therefore apply for leave under s.100(1)(b).
Why A is wrong: Section 100 restricts non-defendant bad character to its gateways and requires leave unless all parties agree.
Why C is wrong: Section 100 expressly governs bad character of persons other than the defendant, including complainants.
Why D is wrong: Agreement is only one gateway; without it, evidence may be admitted with leave under s.100(1)(a) or (b).
Why E is wrong: The 'same description' concept relates to a defendant's propensity under s.103; it is not a condition of s.100.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Attack on another's character and the power to exclude (CJA 2003 s.101(1)(g) and (3))
Which of the following best describes the position?
Admitting the statement of a witness too frightened to testify (CJA 2003 ss.114 and 116(2)(e))
Which of the following best describes whether Megan's statement can be admitted?
Extending detention without charge from 24 to 36 hours (PACE 1984 ss.41 and 42)
Which of the following best describes how Hannah's detention without charge may be extended?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.