Bad Character: Criminal Justice Act 2003; Non-Defendant; Defendant Attacking Character of Another
| Published date | 01 February 2006 |
| Date | 01 February 2006 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2006.70.1.11 |
| Author | Ben Fitzpatrick |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Paradox of Cross-examination to Credit—Simply Too Close for Comfort’
(1994) 53 CLJ 303–25). It is worthy of note that in respect of the
applicant H, the recorder was deemed to have correctly admitted evi-
dence of previous convictions for dishonesty offences on the basis of a
propensity to commit relevant offences, and to have correctly declined
to admit evidence of those offences, without further information, as
evidence of propensity to be untruthful (see at [28]).
Ben Fitzpatrick
Bad Character: Criminal Justice Act 2003; Non-defendant;
Defendant Attacking Character of Another
R v Bovell and Dowds [2005] EWCA Crim 1091
This was a consolidated case involving two applications for leave to
appeal against conviction.
Applicant B had been convicted in January 2005, of wounding with
intent.
Applicant D had been convicted, in January 2005, of burglary.
Applicant B
B’s case was that he was acting in self-defence, having been attacked by
the complainant (C). At trial, B had sought to adduce evidence of the C’s
bad character, under s. 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the 2003
Act); his specific claim was that they were of ‘substantial probative
value’ under s. 100(1)(b). C had a conviction for handling stolen goods
from October 1993; and for robbery, committed in 1993, but tried in
1996 or 1997. The details of that offence known to the trial court did not
involve the use of a weapon.
The trial judge declined to allow evidence in relation to the convic-
tions to be adduced. The offences were over a decade ago, and it was
understood by the court that there was no use of a weapon; the evidence
thus did not have substantial probative value.
Disclosure subsequent to the trial revealed that:
1. the robbery committed by C had in fact involved the carrying of a
knife;
2. in May 2001, C had been charged with an offence of wounding
with intent, contrary to s. 18 of the Offences against the Person Act
1861. The charge was ultimately not pursued, as the alleged victim
made a written statement in June 2001, withdrawing the allega-
tion. The reasons for the withdrawal were not known. This matter
is referred to below as ‘the 2001 events’.
The grounds of the application for leave to appeal are not made abso-
lutely clear in the judgment of Rose LJ, but it appears that the matter of
the conviction for handling stolen goods was not pursued before the
Court of Appeal. There is a reference (at [15]) to a caution incurred by
Non-defendant; Defendant Attacking Character of Another
11
To continue reading
Request your trial