Evidence of Bad Character: Criminal Justice Act 2003; Commencement
| Published date | 01 June 2005 |
| Author | Ben Fitzpatrick |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.69.3.206.64784 |
| Date | 01 June 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Evidence of Bad Character:
Criminal Justice Act 2003; Commencement
R v Bradley [2005] EWCA Crim 20
The appellant was convicted, in December 2004, of robbery and of
having an imitation firearm with intent. His trial began on 15 December.
He had a previous conviction for robbery, dating from September
2000. The trial judge ruled that that conviction was admissible under
s. 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as being ‘relevant to
an important matter in issue between the defendant and the
prosecution’.
On appeal, the appellant submitted that:
1. the trial judge was wrong to conclude that the previous conviction
was admissible;
2. in essence, the trial judge was wrong to treat the bad character
evidence provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (‘the Act’)as
being applicable to the appellant’s case.
The relevant bad character evidence provisions (ss 98–110 and 112) of
the Act were brought into force on 15 December 2004 by the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions)
Order 2004 (SI 2004 No. 3033).
The bad character evidence provisions apply to ‘criminal proceed-
ings’. This term is defined in s. 112(1) of the Act as ‘criminal proceedings
in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply’. Section 141
states:
No provision in this Part has effect in relation to criminal proceedings
begun before the commencement of that provision.
The question for the court was whether those provisions applied in all
trials beginning on or after that date, or only those in relation to which
proceedings were begun by the laying of a charge or an information on or
after that date.
The Crown argued for the former interpretation: that the provisions
applied to trials and Newton hearings begun on or after date of the
coming into force of the proceedings.
The Crown suggested that ‘criminal proceedings’ in s. 141 had the
same meaning as in s. 112(1), and that the reference in the latter
provision to ‘criminal proceedings in relation to which the strict rules of
evidence apply’ denoted only trials. Thus, as the trial had begun on the
same day as the coming into force of the provisions, the provisions
should be applicable to it. The Crown argued that to conclude otherwise
would cause difficulties in cases involving co-defendants, some of whom
were charged before, and some after 15 December; and in cases involv-
ing a single defendant facing charges, some laid before, and some after
that date.
The appellant argued that the latter interpretation should prevail:
that, as proceedings against him had been initiated prior to the coming
The Journal of Criminal Law
206
To continue reading
Request your trial