Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | John Wood |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X9306600314 |
| Published date | 01 July 1993 |
| Date | 01 July 1993 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Professor
Sir
John
Wood, C.B.E., LL.M.,
The University
of
Sheffield Legal Correspondent
of
the Police Journal
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
GOOD
CHARACTER
R.
v,
Vye
[1993]
1W.L.R.471 Court of Appeal
Three cases werehere under consideration. They concerned the powers
of the trialJudge in relationto the characterof the accused. Lord Taylor,
C,J., pointed out at the outset of his judgment that the law and practice
appears to have changed within recent years. The trial Judge was
traditionally assumedto have a discretionto commenton thecharacter of
theaccused ashe thought fit. Further,he had noduty to directthejury on,
ordrawtheirattentionto,thequestionof character- R. v. Aberg
[1948]
2
K.B.173.
Since
1989,
however, there hasbeen a stream of appealsbased on the
way in whichthe trial Judge has dealtwith character, complaining either
that there was a misdirection, or that there was no direction at all. The
result has been that the positionno longer remainsclear.
Historically, the accused could always produce evidenceof his own
goodcharacter, even inthedayswhenhewasnotallowedtogive evidence
onthe subjectmatterof thetrial. It wasregardedas aproperconsideration
to be takeninto accountby the jury in comingto an opinionas to whether
a person of such and such a character was likely to have committed the
offence. This proposition was clearlyformulated by WilliamsJ. in R. v.
Stannard (1837)7 C. &P. 673 at p. 675. In morerecent times, Widgery
J.pointedoutthatwhetherapersonhas,orhasnot,a goodcharacteraffects
his credibility as a witness - R. v. Bellis
[1966]
1 W.L.R. 234. In R. v.
Bryant
[1979]
Q.B.108thetrialludgeappearedto saythatgoodcharacter
was only relevant as far as credibility was concerned. thus appearing to
narrowtheprinciplesetoutinStannard. The AppealCourtindicatedthat
the principle wascorrect but did not set aside the verdict as unsafe.
InR. v. Berrada (1989)91 Cr. App. R.
131
certainremarksbythetrial
Judge, Waterhouse J., were the subject of comment by the Court of
Appeal. TheJudge, in making themhad failed tomention to thejury that
the accusedwas entitledto rely on hisprevious goodcharacterto support
his credibility. It was also indicated that the trial Judge might properly
have told the jury that that good character was also a relevant factor in
decidingthequestionwhetherthemanaccusedwaslikelytohavebehaved
asalleged. Generallywheregoodcharacterisraisedit shouldbedealtwith
inthesumming-up by wayof a "fairand balanced"comment stressingits
primaryrelevance to credibility.
So it is clear that bythis time the two limbs- the accused's credibility
as a witness and likelihoodof his having committedsuch conduct- had
been established. The first limb as a necessary direction, the second
322 The Police Journal July 1993
To continue reading
Request your trial