Question 1

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

Accepted Answer

Section 100 CJA 2003 allows evidence to be presented in court relating to the bad character of a non-defendant witness if it is relevant and deemed to be in the interest of justice.

Question 2

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

Accepted Answer

In R v Hanson (2005), the court set out three requirements when the Crown is seeking to adduce evidence to establish a defendant's propensity to commit similar crimes to those they have already committed. The first requirement is to determine whether the history of the defendant's convictions establishes a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged. The second requirement is to assess whether that propensity makes it more likely that the defendant had committed the offence charged. Finally, the court must consider whether it would be unjust to admit such evidence. These requirements serve as a framework for the admissibility of evidence related to a defendant's propensity to commit similar crimes.

Question 3

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.

Accepted Answer

A, C

Question 4

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.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A judges discretion to exclude bad character...

Question 5

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

Accepted Answer

R v Vye established that a judge must direct the jury on two aspects of good character: the defendant's credibility and their propensity to commit the crime.

Question 6

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.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Who does S101 (g) apply to ?...

Question 7

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.

Accepted Answer

Evidence will only be admissible under S101(1)(c) if its value is substantial and without it, the factfinder would find it impossible to understand other evidence in the case. This means that the evidence must be important and necessary for a proper understanding of the case. It cannot be used merely to explain a trivial piece of evidence or to attack a person's character.

Question 8

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.

Accepted Answer

The bad character evidence is not admissible if it goes further than necessary to correct a false impression.

Question 9

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

Accepted Answer

S98 defining bad character can now be found under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Question 10

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)

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately reflects the ruling in R v Edwards. Evidence of unproven behavior can be deemed as bad character and subject to admissibility under S101(1).

Question 11

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

Accepted Answer

This defense is called alibi and it allows the defendant to argue that they were physically not present at the location where the crime was committed because they were elsewhere.

Question 12

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.

Accepted Answer

The statement incorrectly states that the similar fact rule was upheld by the Government in S99 CJA 2003. In fact, it was abolished by the Criminal Justice Act, S.99.

Question 13

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.

Accepted Answer

S101 (1) (a) allows for the admission of bad character evidence if all parties agree to it. However, it is unlikely that the defence would agree to this as it could harm the defendant's reputation.

Question 14

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)

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. Section 101(3) and (4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 give the court discretion to exclude evidence of a defendant's bad character if its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings. This discretion is granted under section 101(1) of the same Act.

Question 15

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

Accepted Answer

Evidence of a defendant's bad character is not always admissible. It can only be admitted if it meets the criteria set out in section 101(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which includes factors such as relevance to the case and probative value.

Question 16