Imputations on the Character of Prosecution Witnesses
| Published date | 01 September 1966 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1966.tb02256.x |
| Author | Florence O'Donoghue |
| Date | 01 September 1966 |
IMPUTATIONS
ON
THE CHARACTER
OF
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
BY
the Criminal Evidence Act
1898,
8.
1
(1)
(ii),
one of the grounds
upon which the prosecution may cross-examine
a.
defendant
as
to
character is that
“
the nature
or
conduct of the defence is such
as
to involve imputations
on
the character of the prosecutor
or
the
witnesses for the prosecution.”
It
cannot be said that the interpre-
tation of these words by the Court of Criminal Appeal over some
six decades has been notable
for
consistency. In Cross and Jones’s
Zntroduction to Criminal
Law
1
it
is
stated that the decisions
concerning what amounts to an imputation
on
the character of the
prosecutor
or
his witnesses
“
are not altogether easy to reconcile.”
Professor Glanville Williams, in
The
Proof
of
Guilt,l
expressed
himself more bluntly and wrote that before
1959
the authorities were
chaotic. As a result of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal
in
R.
v.
Cook
8
some
of
the confusion has been removed,
and
the
present position seems to be set out accurately in Cross and Jones,
who, citing
Cook
and the later case of
R.
v.
Flynn,‘
write:
“
The latest authorities suggest that the words of the statute
must be construed literally, even
in
cases in which imputations
are
a
necessary part of the accused’s case, but that the judge
should generally exercise his discretion to cxclude cross-
examination which is legally proper when imputations are
an
essential part of the offence
[sw].”
“
These cases,”.said Channel1
J.
in
R.
v.
Pre~ton,~
c‘
are very
often somewhat difficult to deal with.” In this essay
it
is proposed
to examine the cases and
it
will be seen that they disclose two
discernibly incompatible lines of approach by the Appeal Court.
In
some of the cases the conduct of the defence reflected upon the
behaviour of police witnesses.
Preston
was one. There, the appel-
lant had been placed in an identity parade after
a
housebreaking.
He was second from the end of
a
row and he heard a police inspector
say something about
“
second
’’
to a constable whom he sent to
bring in a man who was to identify the appellant. When this man
came in he immediately picked out
a
man standing second from
the other end of the row. In his evidence at the trial the appellant
referred to what had happened and he accused the Inspector of
deliberately assisting the witness
in
his identification. The appel-
lant was thereupon cross-examined as to previous convictions
on
1
6th
od.
(1964).
p.
460.
6
[1909]
1
K.B.
668.
8
1969
a
AH
E.R.
97.
2
3rd
oa.
(1063).
p.
233.
4
[l96l]
3
All
E.R.
68.
492
To continue reading
Request your trial