R v Vye ; R v Wise ; R v Stephenson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 February 1993 |
| Date | 18 February 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Taylor of Gosforth, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Judge and Mr Justice Hidden
Criminal procedure - defendant's good character - judge's direction- guidance
Guidance on the direction judges should give of the effect of a defendant's good character was provided by the Court of Appeal when delivering reserved judgment on appeals in three cases listed together all based on criticisms of the judges' directions to the jury on the effect of good character.
The situation concerning such directions regarding the relevance of good character to the defendant's credibility (the first limb) and his propensity to behave as alleged by the Crown (the second limb) had been described as something of a lottery.
The appeals were brought by John Arthur Wye, aged 50, of Anchor Road, Bournemouth; Peter Frederick James Wise, aged 36, of Lower Road, Hextable, Kent and Malcolm Stephenson, aged 37, of Hindhead Gardens, Northolt.
Mr Christopher Clark, QC and Mr Paul Garlick for Vye; Mr Christopher Clark, QC and Mr Peter Digney for Wise; Mr Michael Wolkind for Stephenson; all assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals; Mr Martin Wilson, QC and Mr John Coveny, Mr James Bullen and Mr Nicholas Brown for the Crown.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, giving the reserved judgment of the court, said that the problems which seemed to be unresolved on the authorities were (a) whether a first limb direction needed to be given in a case where the defendant did not give evidence but had made statements to the police or others; (b) whether the second limb direction was not to be regarded as discretionary or obligatory; and (c) what course the judge should take in a joint trial where one defendant was of good character but another was not.
(a) When the defendant had not given evidence at trial but relied on exculpatory statements made to the police or others, the judge should direct the jury to have regard to the defendant's good character when considering the credibility of those statements.
He would, of course, be entitled to make observations about the way the jury should approach such exculpatory statements in contrast to evidence given on oath, but where the jury was considering the truthfulness of any such statements it would be logical for them to take good character into account, just as they would in regard to a defendant's evidence.
Clearly, if a defendant of good...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romeo Cannonier Appellant v DPP Respondent [ECSC]
...so insurmountable that, even with a good character direction given to the jury, his conviction was inevitable. R v Vye and Others (1993) 97 Cr. App. R. 134 applied; Eversley Thompson v The Queen [1998] A.C. 811 applied; Teeluck and John v The State of Trinidad and Tobago [2005] UKPC 14; [2......
-
Romeo Cannonier Appellant v DPP Respondent [ECSC]
...so insurmountable that, even with a good character direction given to the jury, his conviction was inevitable. R v Vye and Others (1993) 97 Cr. App. R. 134 applied; Eversley Thompson v The Queen [1998] A.C. 811 applied; Teeluck and John v The State of Trinidad and Tobago [2005] UKPC 14; [2......
-
Teeluck and another v State of Trinidad and Tobago
...jury, tailored to fit the circumstances of the case: Thompson v The Queen [1998] AC 811, following R v Aziz [1996] AC 41 and R v Vye [1993] 1 WLR 471. (ii) The direction should be given as a matter of course, not of discretion. It will have some value and will therefore be capable of havin......
-
Mattison v R
...91 Cr. App. R. 131, referred to. (6) R. v. CameronUNK(1989), 26 J.L.R. 453, dicta of Wright J.A. applied. (7) R. v. Vye, [1993] 1 W.L.R. 471; [1993] 3 All E.R. 241, dicta of Lord Taylor, C.J. applied. (8) Singh v. State, [2006] 1 W.L.R. 146; [2005] 4 All E.R. 781; [2006] 2 LRC 409; (2005), ......
-
The Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in English Criminal Proceedings
...itmight amount to evidence of bad character67).61 R vRobinson [1994] 3 All ER 346.62 Ibid.63 R vRowton (1865) Le & Ca 520.64 R vVye [1993] 1 WLR 471.65 R v Redgrave (1981) 74 Cr App R 10.66 (1987) 43 DLR (4th) 641.67 If such evidence did amount to evidence of the accused’s bad character, an......
-
Reconceptualising good character
...in contravention of Lord Steyn’s ‘absurdity principle’,8or directions which are fartoo generous to a1. [2015] EWCA Crim 631.2. [1993] 1 WLR 471.3. [1996] AC 41.4. Above n. 1 at [64].5. Ibid. at [103].6. Ibid. at [70].7. Ibid. at [64].8. See Aziz, above n. 3 at 53B–C, where Lord Steyn stated......
-
Privy Council
...befollowed and applied in Trinidad and Tobago, was similarly bypassed.Of greater substance was the second ground of appeal. In R vVye[1993] 1 WLR 471, the Court of Appeal gave firm guidance on therelevant principles to be applied in ‘good character’ cases. Essentially, asthe House of Lords......
-
State, Citizen, and Character in French Criminal Process
...Process (1998) at 184; P. Roberts and A.Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (2004) at 552; I. Dennis, Law of Evidence (2002) at654.6Rv. Vye [1993] 3 All E.R. 241, confirmed by the House of Lords in Rv. Aziz [1996]A.C. 41.7 Roberts and Zuckerman, op. cit., n. 5, p. 553.8Forthoughtful discussion (an......