R v Cohen (Marks)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 1990 |
| Date | 01 March 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Farquharson, Mr Justice Garland and Mr Justice Buckley
Criminal evidence - credibility - good character
Where the credibility of a defendant was a vital factor and he was a man of good character, he was entitled to say to the jury through his counsel, and to have it reflected in the summing-up of the judge, that he was a man of good character and was entitled to their assessment of his credibility in the light of that good character.
The Court of Appeal so stated in allowing an appeal by Marks Cohen against his conviction at Preston Crown Court on December 6, 1989 (Judge Jolly and a jury) on two counts of conspiring to obtain property by deception and obtaining property by deception on which he had received two concurrent sentences of 15 months imprisonment.
Mr Barrie Searle, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Mr Alan Conrad for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE FARQUHARSON said that it was alleged by the prosecution that the appellant was one of three men who had run a fraudulent business. One of the suppliers who were induced to sell goods to the business and who had consequently lost a great deal of money as result of the fraud subsequently picked the appellant out on an identification parade.
The appellant denied that he was involved when he was arrested. He admitted that he had been to the premises when he had made purchases and also that he had spoken by telephone to one of the men involved concerning the possible supply of goods.
In dealing with character the judge told the jury: "So far as this defendant is concerned, you have been told that he is a man of good character.
"I cannot tell you what weight to give to that, but in so far as you do give it weight, obviously you give it weight in his favour. It is right you should know this, as Mr Searle rightly said.
"That does not entitle him to an acquittal because we all start off with a good character in life. It is a good character and he is over 60 years of age."
It had been conceded by the prosecution before their Lordships that that had not been an adequate direction. It was not adequate for a number of reasons.
It was not enjoining the jury to take it into account at all, because the judge had used the words "in so far as you do give it weight".
The proper direction was that the jury should give weight to good character and the judge should go on to explain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berry v The Queen
... ... 166C , F–G , 167G , H ) ... Reg. v. Bellis [ 1966 ] 1 W.L.R. 234 , C.C.A. and Reg. v. Cohen ( 1990 ) 91 Cr.App.R. 125 , C.A. applied ... (3) That since it could not be said that the jury would inevitably have convicted the ... ...
-
R v Berry (Linton)
...Bellis [1966] 1 All ER 552, [1966] 1 WLR 234, R v Falconer-Atlee (1973) 58 Cr App R 348, R v Marr (1989) 90 Cr App R 154, R v Cohen (1990) 91 Cr App R 125 and R v Berrada (1989) 91 Cr App R 131n., on the issue of evidence of good character, and held at page 258: "The last three cases are......
- R v Vye ; R v Wise ; R v Stephenson
-
Berry v R
...on this point: see R. v. Bellis [1966] 1 W.L.R. 234, R. v. Falconer-Atlee (1973) 58 Cr. App. R. 348, R. v. Marr (1989) 90 Cr. App. R. 154, R. v. Cohen (1990) 91 Cr. App. R. 125 and R. v. Berrada (Note) (1989) 91 Cr. App. R. 131. The last three cases are also authority for the proposition th......