Admissibility of Evidence of Co-defendant’s Bad Character under s. 101(1)(e) Criminal Justice Act 2003
| Date | 01 April 2016 |
| Published date | 01 April 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018316639091 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
conditional or otherwise’. If such an intent can be proven against one or both appellant, then he would be
a murderer (Jogee; Ruddock at [95]) but if not he would be guilty of manslaughter (Jogee; Ruddock at
[96]). These are questions for a jury to answer. Given that the appeal was dismissed on the basis of the
law as it was before the decision of the Supreme Court in Jogee, the unsuccessful appellants may well
apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to seek a referral back to the Court of Appeal.
Tony Storey
Admissibility of Evidence of Co-defendant’s Bad
Character under s. 101(1)(e) Criminal Justice Act 2003:
Irrelevance of Common Law Authorities
RvPlatt [2016] EWCA Crim 4
Keywords
Criminal evidence, admissibility, s. 101(1)(e)Criminal Justice Act 2003, bad character, co-defendants
P, the appellant, appealed against his conviction for murder on two grounds. The first ground of appeal
(to which this case note relates) was that evidence of P’s bad character had been wrongly admitted for P’s
co-defendant, M. The second g round of appeal (which is not fu rther considered in this case note)
concerned the admission of psychiatric evidence relating to M’s mental state.
The allegations against P and M related to the murder of V, the victim. All three lived in a guest house
in which ex-offenders were housed. When fire officers attended a fire at the guest house they found V’s
dead body, which was still alight. V had received multiple injuries to his face and there was a ligature
around his neck but his death had been caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. The prosecution case
against P alleged that P had attacked V, inflicted serious injuries on V and then set V on fire because V
had refused to give P his post office card and PIN. The prosecution case against M (alleging a joint attack
by P and M) depended upon establishing its case against P. M asserted that he had not been involved in
V’s murder and ran a cut-throat defence against P. P did not positively assert that M had murdered V but
placed P in a group of three residents who might have done so.
P had numerous previous convictions including convictions for dishonesty offences and for
possessing offensive weapons. In particular, 23 years earlier, when P was 15 years old, he had
been convicted of arson, and P also had two convictions for causing grievou s bodily harm (from
1995 and 2003). The prosecution did not apply to adduce evidence of P’s previous convictions but
M applied to adduce evidence of them under s. 101(1)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The
judge admitted evidence of the latter three convictions under s. 101(1)(e) as evidence of P’s
propensity to be untruthful because P had implicitly put M’s credibility in issue and had put M
in a group of three residents who might have murdered V. She held that the matters in issue
betweenPandMwerefactualdisputesconcerning their respective locations in the guest house
at the material time and the credibility of P and M and that the three convictions had substantial
probative value. In reaching her decision the judge relied upon the decision at c ommon law of the
House of Lords in Randall [2004] 1 WLR 1413. Following the judge’s decision to admit evidence
of P’s three convictions, P then applied for and was granted permission to adduce evidence of M’s
Court of Appeal 85
To continue reading
Request your trial