Book Review: Character Evidence in the Criminal Trial
| Published date | 01 April 2016 |
| Date | 01 April 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712716641033 |
| Subject Matter | Book Reviews |
Book Reviews
Character Evidence in the Criminal Trial. By Mike Redmayne. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. 330pp,
US$98.50 (hbk). ISBN: 9780199228898.
Introduction
Of course a defendant’s previous convictions are only background. They do not tell you whether he has
committed the offence with which he is charged in this case. What really matters is the evidence that you have
heard in relation to that offence. Campbell vR[2007] 2 Cr App Rep 28, [44], Lord Phillips CJ
Mike Redmayne’s Character in the Criminal Trial (2015) describes, dissects and evaluates the utility of
character evidence about a defendant in the modern criminal trial. The particular and valuable contri-
bution of this book is Redmayne’s focus on the key contemporary debate surrounding the use of
character evidence in th e trial, that is, on argume nts of logic. It is distinctl y interdisciplinary an d
ultimately presents a generally positive report card for relying on more rather than less character
evidence in criminal prosecutions. This essay places a number of Redmayne’s arguments under scrutiny.
Its lead comes from Lord Phillips’ apparently paradoxical exhortation to jurors that evidence of
previous convictions does not assist to tell them ‘whether [the defendant] ...has committed the offence
with which he is charged’. This raises the question of the true role of this ‘background’ evidence. If it is
not probative of guilt or helpful to assess a defend ant’s credibility, then why admit it? Redmayne
explains why, relying on Bayesian modelling to do so. Redmayne’s starting point is that ‘prior offending
is among the most significant predictors of future offending’ (2015: 31) and the comparative propensity
of an offender to reoffend makes evidence of prior convictions robust evidence in a criminal prosecution.
In Chapters 6–10, 12 and 13, Redmayne provides fine-grained consideration of his thesis, linked to the
language of and case law arising from the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003).
As we know, traditionally at common law and also under the CJA 2003, ‘only convictions for cognate
offences tend to come in’ (Redmayne, 2015: 274). Redmayne observes that statistically the ‘D with a
previous conviction for rape is much more likely to commit rape, compared to other people’, and so on
for theft, etc (2015: 51). However, Redmayne suggests that specialisation in offending is not necessarily
a prerequisite for his thesis that evidence of prior convictions is robust proof because ‘offenders show
considerable versatility’, that is, there is ‘a fair degree of promiscuity in offending’ (2015: 30). Red-
mayne points the reader to 2009 statistical data from England and Wales indicating that, over a one-year
period, compared to members of the general public, offenders were 49 times more likely to commit an
offence, that is, any offence (Redmayne, 2015: Table 2.7 and 23–30, relying on Ministry of Justice,
2010, 2011). Redmayne applies caution to casting first-time offenders, youth offenders and offenders
with stale criminal records (th at is, no offences recorded for 10 yea rs) into this statistically-ba sed
recidivism vortex (2015: 32). The argument often presented in contradiction of Redmayne’s approach
stems from psychological research that indicates that situational factors strongly contribute to the
commission of crime. That is, individual circumstances can change an offender’s (and a non-offender’s)
conduct. This includes, but extends beyond, what Redmayne describes as criminogenic situations. As
The International Journalof
Evidence & Proof
2016, Vol. 20(2) 162–174
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1365712716641033
epj.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial