R v Bradley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 2005 |
| Date | 14 January 2005 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal Criminal Division
Before Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Mitting and Mr Justice Walker
Criminal evidence - admissibility of evidence of defendant's 'bad character' - provisions in new statute cause waste of judicial time
The new provisions in relation to the admissibility of evidence of a defendant's bad character applied to all trials and disputes as to the facts on a plea of guilty begun after the commencement date of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on December 15, 2004.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held in dismissing an appeal by David Benjamin Bradley against his conviction on December 17, 2004, at Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court (Judge Faulks and a jury) of robbery (count 1) and having an imitation firearm with intent (count 2) for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment on each count with a recommendation that he serve four years, six months and 21 days in in prison.
He appealed against conviction by certificate of the trial judge who certified that the case was fit for appeal on the ground that there was doubt as to when the bad character provisions of the 2003 Act came into effect.
Section 101 of the 2003 Act provides: "Defendant's bad character (1) In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant's bad character is admissible if, but only if -… (d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution…"
Section 112 provides: "Interpretation of Chapter 1 (1) In this Chapter - …'criminal proceedings' means criminal proceedings in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply…"
Section 134 provides: "Interpretation of Chapter 2 (1) In this Chapter -…
'criminal proceedings' means criminal proceedings in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply…"
Section 140 provides: "Interpretation of Chapter 3 In this Chapter -'criminal proceedings' means criminal proceedings in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply…"
Section 141 provides: "Saving No provision of this Part has effect in relation to criminal proceedings begun before the commencement of that provision."
Mr Richard Bloomfield, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the defendant; Mr Richard Horwell and Robert Woodcock for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE ROSE, giving the reserved judgment of the court, said that the defendant's trial on charges on robbery and having an imitation firearm with intent, had started on the afternoon of December 15, 2004, the day on which the new provisions in the 2003 Act came into force in relation to the admissibility of evidence of bad character.
The Crown made an application to adduce evidence before the jury of the defendant's conviction of robbery on July 25, 2000. The trial judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Singh
...of the appellant, Mr Csoka advanced five grounds of appeal. First, he submitted that, despite this Court's judgment in R v Bradley [2005] 1 Cr App R 397, the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, in relation to the admissibility of evidence of hearsay and bad character, did not apply......
-
R (Crown Prosecution Service) v City of London Magistrates Court
...the hearsay provisions in the 2003 Act did apply to the case. His Lordship applied R v BradleyTLRUNK (The Times January 17, 2005; (2005) 1 Cr App R 397) and R v HTLR (The Times August 22, 2005). So the law applied as amended in June 7, 2005. However, section 5D of the 1980 Act was not repea......
-
R v O'Hare
...the sweeping-up interests of justice provision. 28 This case was tried before section 114 came into force. We have been referred to R v Bradley [2005] 1 Cr App R 397 and also R v H [2005] EWCA Crim 2063, Times 2 August 2005, where it was held that in the event of a retrial the new provision......
-
R v XY
...is almost 2 years ago. 7 The present application is therefore another example to add to that in R v Bradley [2005] EWCA Crim 20, [2005] 1 Cr App R 397 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 being prematurely brought into force. The present case highlights an enthusiasm on the part of the Home Of......
-
Case Management, Similar Fact Evidence in Civil Cases, and a Divided Law of Evidence
...201, per Addy J.75 Trial of Benjamin Knowles (Hodge: London, 1933; Notable British Trials) 22–3.76 See RvBradley [2005] EWCA Crim 20, [2005] 1 Cr App R 397 at [39], per Rose This follows in the train of a catalogue of reforms that have progressively dimin-ished the role of the jury in Engli......