Revised Guidance on Good Character Directions
| Author | Michael Stockdale |
| Published date | 01 October 2015 |
| Date | 01 October 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0022018315605229 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal
Revised Guidance on Good Character Directions
RvHunter, Saruwu, Johnstone, Walker and Londsdale [2015] EWCA Crim 631
Keywords
Good character, directions to jury, convictions
The Court of Appeal heard five appeals relating to good character directions in criminal proceedings.
The facts of the cases were as follows.
RvWalker
W was convicted of assault by penetration. He accepted that he had touched the complainant as alleged
but claimed that he had been unable to form the requisite mens rea because he suffered from the sleep
disorder known as ‘sexsomnia’. W had a number of historic convictions, mostly for offences of dishon-
esty but some for assault. Without giving prior notice to the court or the prosecution, W adduced evi-
dence of these convictions at his trial. Because W had no sexual offence convictions, the recorder
trying the case gave the jury the propensity limb of the good character direction. In relation to credibility,
he pointed out that W had been of good character in the recent past. The recorder referred to good char-
acter evidence of which the jury was aware and made clear that the jury had to assess the impact, if any,
that the convictions had upon W’s credibility. He indicated that the weight of the convictions was a mat-
ter for the jury, but emphasised that they were old convictions and that W had behaved well since then.
W’s counsel had agreed with the judge’s approach.
On appeal, W asserted that he had adduced evidence of his previous convictions in order that he could
have a two-limb good character direction. W submitted that the fact that the prosecution had not applied
to adduce evidence of his convictions meant that it had conceded that the convictions were not probative.
Accordingly, although the recorder had been obliged to give a good character direction, he had left it to
the jury to decide whether W was entitled to a credibility direction rather than deciding himself. He had
invited the jury to hold the convictions against W in relation to the issue of credibility, even though they
had no probative value and would not have been before the jury if W had not adduced them in evidence.
RvJohnstone
J was convicted of sexual activity with a child. J claimed that the complainant’s allegations had been
fabricated. He had numerous previous convictions for offences of dishonesty and convictions for arson,
common assault and motoring offences, his most recent being 15 years old. The judge agreed with coun-
sel that J was entitled to a modified good character direction. Her directions to the jury indicated that,
whilst they were aware of J’s criminal background, J had no post-1996 convictions and that he had no
sexual offence convictions. She told the jury that they should bear this in mind both when deciding
whether J committed the offences with which he was charged and when deciding whether they believed
The Journal of Criminal Law
2015, Vol. 79(5) 317–321
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018315605229
clj.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial