R v Highton, R v Van Nguyen, R v Carp
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2005 |
| Date | 28 July 2005 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL Criminal Division
Before Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mr Justice Richards.
ONCE EVIDENCE of a defendant's bad character had been admitted as a result of his attack on another person's character, it could then be used, if relevant, to show his propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he was charged.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held when:
(i) dismissing the appeal of Edward Highton against his conviction at Oxford Crown Court (Judge Morton Jack and a jury) on February 28, 2005, on two counts of kidnapping, two counts of robbery and one count of theft; (ii) allowing the appeal of Dong Van Nguyen and quashing his conviction at Manchester Crown Court (Judge Ensor and a jury) on February 16, 2005 for cultivating a controlled drug, namely cannabis; and (iii) dismissing the appeal of Anthony Carp against his conviction at Taunton Crown Court (Mr Recorder Marston and a jury) on February 9, 2005, on two counts of common Mr Peter Du Feu, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for Highton; Ms Fiona Horlick for the Crown.
Mr Michael Goldwater, assigned by the Registrar, for Van Nguyen; Mr William Baker for the Crown.
Mr Terry Munyard, assigned by the Registrar, for Carp; Mr Peter Ashman for the Crown.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, giving the judgment of the court, said that the appeals each concerned the bad character provisions contained in sections 98 to 113 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The issue was whether evidence admitted under section 101(1)(g) as a result of an attack by the defendant on another person's character was admissible as evidence of a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which the defendant was charged, or was only admissible in relation to his credibility, that was, as evidence tending to show that he was likely to be untruthful.
The issue arose because section 101 identified seven different gateways, at least one of which had to be complied with before evidence of a defendant's bad character was admissible in criminal proceedings.
However, the 2003 Act did not expressly identify the purpose for which the bad character evidence could be used if it passed through one of those gateways and was therefore admissible.
The appellants contended that the purposes for which admissible evidence of bad character could be used were confined by the terms of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Introducción El derecho procesal y la cooperación judicial civil de la Unión Europea
...la vida" a la CUE tras ser rechazada por franceses y holandeses. A. BROWNE, "No way back for european Constitution, says Barroso", The Times, 2 September 2005; N. WATT, "Barroso's last rites for EU Charter", The Guardian Unlimited, 2, September 2005; F. de ANDRÉS, "Catherine Colonna: La mej......