The Assizes
| Published date | 01 October 1951 |
| Date | 01 October 1951 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201835101500402 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Assizes
CHARACTER OF
PROSECUTOR
:
ADMISSIBILITY
OF
EVIDENCE
OF
REPUTATION
R. v. Wood
INthis case
at
the
Salop Assizes (1951, 2
All
E.R.
112)
the
defendant was charged in
the
first count of
the
indictment with robbing Cwith violence,
and
in
the
second
count
with
assaulting Cthereby occasioning him
actual
bodily harm. During
the
cross-examination of C counsel
for
the
defendant asked whether on
the
night relating to
the
charge he made an improper suggestion to
the
defendant
and
committed an act of gross indecency with him. The
Crown proposed to call evidence in
rebuttal
to prove
that
C was a person of good general reputation,
but
the
defence
submitted
that
such evidence was inadmissible.
Even
though Cmight have behaved indecently on one occasion,
that
was consistent with his being of good general reputa-
tion, and, it was argued, evidence to prove
that
he was a
person of good general
reputation
could only prejudice
the
jury
in his favour against
the
defendant.
The
jury, it was
said,
had
to decide whether C's evidence
about
the
incident
on
the
night in question was
true
or whether
the
defendant's
evidence was true.
It
was argued for
the
Crown
that,
in
view of
the
questions
put,
it was relevant
that
the
jury
should know
what
kind of reputation C
had
and
that
there
was an analogy in cases of rape where a defence was set up,
when
it
was usual to ask
what
kind of
reputation
the
woman had.
After considering these various arguments Morris J.
held
that
the
evidence in
the
circumstances was inadmissible.
160
To continue reading
Request your trial