- Page 1 and 2:
The Law Commission (LAW COM No 273)
- Page 3 and 4:
THE LAW COMMISSION EVIDENCE OF BAD
- Page 5 and 6:
v Paragraph Page Severance of defen
- Page 7 and 8:
vii Paragraph Page The relevance of
- Page 9 and 10:
ix Paragraph Page Ensuring a fair t
- Page 11 and 12:
xi Paragraph Page PART XIV: THE CO-
- Page 13 and 14:
ABBREVIATIONS In this paper we use
- Page 15 and 16:
OUR APPROACH 1.4 We are aware that
- Page 17 and 18:
1.10 We are unable to say whether,
- Page 19 and 20:
1.21 In assessing the probative val
- Page 21 and 22:
PART II THE PRESENT LAW 2.1 In this
- Page 23 and 24:
2.8 The following sections address
- Page 25 and 26:
such case is Lewis 23 where evidenc
- Page 27 and 28:
efused severance, the judge should
- Page 29 and 30:
2.26 A relatively recent line of ca
- Page 31 and 32:
On a prosecution under this section
- Page 33 and 34:
likely that by way of analogy a “
- Page 35 and 36:
offence other than that wherewith h
- Page 37 and 38:
section 1(f)(i). This was because t
- Page 39 and 40:
there is no such thing known to our
- Page 41 and 42:
the prosecution” within section 1
- Page 43 and 44:
Their Lordships held that a prior c
- Page 45 and 46:
down guidelines for the exercise of
- Page 47 and 48:
judged objectively and particular c
- Page 49 and 50:
defendants, S, was permitted to add
- Page 51 and 52:
2.95 This approach was confirmed in
- Page 53 and 54:
the trial, taking all the circumsta
- Page 55 and 56:
Denmark case, the trial was before
- Page 57 and 58:
a prosecution, it might lead to a c
- Page 59 and 60:
triangulation of interests of the a
- Page 61 and 62:
may depart from the language of the
- Page 63 and 64:
convention. If this test is satisfi
- Page 65 and 66:
THE PROBLEMS IN DETAIL (I): EVIDENC
- Page 67 and 68:
category into which the evidence fa
- Page 69 and 70:
there are many other instances wher
- Page 71 and 72:
evidence to be given of any act of
- Page 73 and 74:
(ii) The use that can be made of ba
- Page 75 and 76:
consequences. This puts a premium o
- Page 77 and 78:
(b) testify but not contest the con
- Page 79 and 80:
their clients’ records would be r
- Page 81 and 82:
has considerable force. This argume
- Page 83 and 84:
four respondents who argued that wh
- Page 85 and 86:
inconsistencies in the witnesses’
- Page 87 and 88:
explanation is that judges must not
- Page 89 and 90:
THE NEED FOR CHANGE 4.80 The law on
- Page 91 and 92:
PART V GENERAL PRINCIPLES 5.1 In Pa
- Page 93 and 94: (2) the nature of the misconduct ma
- Page 95 and 96: Simplicity 6.5 Option 1 appealed to
- Page 97 and 98: admitted automatically even though
- Page 99 and 100: expected to play some part. A regim
- Page 101 and 102: since the purpose of such a directi
- Page 103 and 104: The risk of prejudice 6.33 In the c
- Page 105 and 106: defendant with a previous convictio
- Page 107 and 108: past behaviour in evidence, in the
- Page 109 and 110: 6.55 A practical difficulty with th
- Page 111 and 112: solution would thus be to allow evi
- Page 113 and 114: PART VII OVERVIEW OF OUR RECOMMENDA
- Page 115 and 116: sought to put before the fact-finde
- Page 117 and 118: helpful” in assessing that person
- Page 119 and 120: THE PURPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE 7.20 Th
- Page 121 and 122: (a) it falls within the central set
- Page 123 and 124: Evidence of criminal offences 8.10
- Page 125 and 126: 8.16 In view of this difficulty we
- Page 127 and 128: (iii) the accused may have had a re
- Page 129 and 130: 8.32 We recommend that (1) all othe
- Page 131 and 132: PART IX EXCEPTIONS APPLICABLE TO NO
- Page 133 and 134: sections 102-103, which provide tha
- Page 135 and 136: extends to all bad character eviden
- Page 137 and 138: distort the fact-finding process”
- Page 139 and 140: could itself lead to unfairness.) 3
- Page 141 and 142: the legislation so as not to exclud
- Page 143: ut which adds very little. We are n
- Page 147 and 148: admitted as “background” withou
- Page 149 and 150: X sets up a company, as sole shareh
- Page 151 and 152: PART XI THE INCRIMINATORY EXCEPTION
- Page 153 and 154: Option 4: the Australian common law
- Page 155 and 156: 11.18 Four of the five respondents
- Page 157 and 158: consultation paper we gave an examp
- Page 159 and 160: 11.35 In that case the similar defe
- Page 161 and 162: (A) the risk of the fact-finders at
- Page 163 and 164: stolen goods (section 27(3)(a)) or
- Page 165 and 166: 11.59 It is not for us, dealing as
- Page 167 and 168: the likelihood that he or she was l
- Page 169 and 170: (2) the defendant has suggested tha
- Page 171 and 172: (3) by attacking the person’s rep
- Page 173 and 174: WHEN A DEFENDANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
- Page 175 and 176: example, it was impossible to edit
- Page 177 and 178: THE CORRECTIVE EVIDENCE MUST HAVE S
- Page 179 and 180: indivisible, but do not prescribe w
- Page 181 and 182: incompetent questioning) into makin
- Page 183 and 184: 13.46 We understand the concern tha
- Page 185 and 186: PART XIV THE CO-DEFENDANT EXCEPTION
- Page 187 and 188: (1) the degree to which D2’s defe
- Page 189 and 190: allow D1 to undermine D2’s defenc
- Page 191 and 192: prosecution witnesses. The responde
- Page 193 and 194: (5) there were a series of factors
- Page 195 and 196:
The operation of the exception 14.4
- Page 197 and 198:
PART XV THE QUALITY OF TENDERED EVI
- Page 199 and 200:
The current law 15.9 The question h
- Page 201 and 202:
improbability that different compla
- Page 203 and 204:
collusion or contamination the pros
- Page 205 and 206:
Responses on consultation 15.32 Thi
- Page 207 and 208:
15.38 We make no equivalent recomme
- Page 209 and 210:
two of those suggested a presumptio
- Page 211 and 212:
offences. There was sufficient conn
- Page 213 and 214:
separate trials. 17 No argument for
- Page 215 and 216:
Boardman 20 that it was simply aski
- Page 217 and 218:
statement in advance. 7 If one part
- Page 219 and 220:
A DUTY TO GIVE REASONS The common l
- Page 221 and 222:
equires magistrates to give reasons
- Page 223 and 224:
PART XVIII THE COLLECTED RECOMMENDA
- Page 225 and 226:
(3) the evidence adduced in support
- Page 227 and 228:
(1) rules on whether leave is requi
- Page 229 and 230:
Criminal Evidence Bill 1 DRAFT OF A
- Page 231 and 232:
2 3 Non-defendant’s bad character
- Page 233 and 234:
Criminal Evidence Bill 3 6 Defendan
- Page 235 and 236:
4 Criminal Evidence Bill (a) the de
- Page 237 and 238:
Criminal Evidence Bill 5 (d) in a c
- Page 239 and 240:
6 Criminal Evidence Bill appears ju
- Page 241 and 242:
Criminal Evidence Bill 7 12 Trying
- Page 243 and 244:
8 Criminal Evidence Bill (b) the ci
- Page 245 and 246:
Criminal Evidence Bill 9 (a) a ruli
- Page 247 and 248:
10 Criminal Evidence Bill “defend
- Page 249 and 250:
Criminal Evidence Bill 11 (2) The r
- Page 251 and 252:
12 SCHEDULES Criminal Evidence Bill
- Page 253 and 254:
14 Short title and chapter Extent o
- Page 255 and 256:
(5) recent dissimilar conviction; 6
- Page 257 and 258:
A.13 A recent dissimilar previous c
- Page 259 and 260:
square brackets; this tended to occ
- Page 261 and 262:
ASSISTING IN REACHING VERDICT A.30
- Page 263 and 264:
APPENDIX B PERSONS AND ORGANISATION
- Page 265 and 266:
The Right Honourable Lord Justice P