Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4601900302 |
| Date | 01 July 1946 |
| Published date | 01 July 1946 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Recent Judicial Decisions
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS
.R. v. Jenkins
THE accused who elects to give evidence may
not
be asked questions
tending to show
that
he has committed other offences or is of bad
character.
This
general principle, which is laid down by the Criminal
Evidence Act, 1898, section
I,
is, however, subject to a number of
exceptions.
The
position was clearly explained by the Court of Criminal
Appeal in R. v. Jenkins (114L.J. (K.B.) 425).
It
was there said that the
section " was intended to be a protection to an accused person. A case
ought to be tried on its own facts and it has always been recognised
that
it is better that the
jury
should know nothing about an accused's past
history if that is to his discredit.
Just
as it was recognised by the
Legislature that this was fair and proper, so it was recognised that, if
the nature or conduct of the defence was such as to involve imputations
on the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution,
it was equally fair and proper that the prosecution should have
the
right
to ask questions tending to show
that
the
accused has committed or
been convicted of an offence other than
that
which is
under
investiga-
tion.
If
and when such asituation arises, it is open to counsel to apply
to the presiding judge
that
he may be allowed to take the course indi-
cated, as was done in this case. Such an application will not always be
granted, for the judge has a discretion in the matter. He may feel that,
even though the position is established in law, still the putting of
such
questions as to the character of the accused may be fraught with results
which immeasurably outweigh the result of questions
put
by the defence
and which make a fair trial of the accused almost impossible. On the
other hand, in the ordinary and normal case, he may feel that if the credit
of the prosecutor or his witnesses has been attacked it is only fair that
the
jury
should have before them material on which they can form their
judgment as to whether the accused is any more worthy to be believed
than
those he has attacked."
At the trial of the appellant, who was charged with receiving a fur
coat, knowing it to have been stolen, the chief witness for the Crown
was a married woman, who alleged that the coat was her property.
The
accused's counsel
put
questions to her which purported to elicit
an admission
that
she had been sexually intimate with
the
accused and
had allowed indecent photographs of herself to be taken. These ques-
tions as the Court of Criminal Appeal said,
were"
directed to showing
that
she was worthless and an abandoned woman whose evidence ought
164
To continue reading
Request your trial