Criminal Justice Act 2003: Bad Character Provisions
| Date | 01 October 2006 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2006.70.5.390 |
| Published date | 01 October 2006 |
| Author | Ben Fitzpatrick |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
The notion of a Waverunner being regarded as a ‘ship’ would have again
been in issue, presumably with the same result.
There is an old naval adage (Anon.) that a ship by its very nature must
have three decks above the waterline to be classed as a ship. This allows
for the fact that submarines, fishing vessels (apart from the large factory
ships) and various other vessels are classed as ‘boats’. The Oxford
English Dictionary describes a ship as a ‘large seagoing vessel; A sailing
vessel with a bowsprit and 3, 4 or 5 square rigged masts’. It also describes
a vessel as ‘a ship or boat, esp. a large one’ and a boat as ‘a small vessel
propelled on water by engine, oars or sails’. Perhaps it is time to change
the wording in the relevant statutes and regulations, in order explicitly
to cover those types of vessel being used by more and more people as
they take to the water for pleasure.
Trevor Douglas
Criminal Justice Act 2003: Bad Character Provisions
R v Edwards and Rowlands [2005] EWCA Crim 3244
A number of conjoined cases on the bad character provisions of the
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (‘the 2003 Act’) were heard by the Court of
Appeal
Applicant E and Appellant R
E and R were convicted, in April 2005, of conspiracy to supply a Class A
drug. Only R was appealing against conviction. Both E and R were
renewing their applications for leave to appeal against sentence.
The prosecution case was that E and R had participated in a conspiracy
together and with unknown persons to supply ecstasy to another. Police
had attended E’s house, where R was also present, and had taken posses-
sion of packages which were found to contain a substantial number of
ecstasy tablets. Various other items of evidence were recovered.
E claimed that the drugs were not his and that R had brought them to
the house unexpectedly. R denied having brought the drugs with him
and claimed that they belonged to E.
R’s home was searched after his arrest and a gun and ammunition
was found. The gun was an antique firearm (for the purposes of the
Firearms Act 1968, s. 58(2)) and consequently did not require certifica-
tion. However, R was also charged with possession of ammunition
without a firearm certificate. That count was eventually severed from
the conspiracy count.
The trial judge permitted cross-examination of R on his previous
convictions and on the ammunition. He said that he did not prevent
questioning on the firearm itself, but that that was a matter for counsel
to deal with as they saw fit.
R had previous convictions for criminal damage dating from 1983; the
penalty was a fine); handling (1992; fine of £50); criminal damage
The Journal of Criminal Law
390
To continue reading
Request your trial