Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal ... - Law Commission

A DUTY TO GIVE REASONS
The common law
17.8 In the civil arena, the failure to give reasons for a conclusion essential to the
decision at first instance is in itself good grounds for appeal. This was held in
Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd 20 where the essential decision was the
preference of the evidence of one expert witness over that of another. The Court
of Appeal considered the duty to give reasons to be a function of due process. A
party should be in no doubt as to why they had won or lost the case and whether
the court had misdirected itself so as to enable the losing party to consider
whether he might appeal. The extent of the duty to give reasons varies depending
on the decision and the circumstances. 21
17.9 In the criminal sphere, the absence of a detailed ruling on the admissibility of
evidence will not necessarily attract criticism, 22 but recent authority indicates this
may not always be the case:
In our judgment, on this aspect of the matter, the judge plainly did
not give reasons for admitting the statements. It is clear that he
should have done so. It is clear that the reasons for exercising the
discretion under section 26 [of the Criminal Justice Act 1988], like
the reasons for exercising any other discretion, ought to be given by
the trial judge, however briefly. That has been the position in English
law for many years and it is a matter to which Article 6 of the
European Convention gives added emphasis. 23
17.10 In the Crown Court, reasons should be given for the Crown Court’s decision on
appeal from a magistrates’ court, allowing the parties to know the nature of the
criminality the appeal court had found and to consider whether to apply to state
a case. 24 The duty to give reasons applies equally where the court has found for
the defendant as on the upholding of a conviction. 25 This duty is not absolute. 26
20 [2000] 1 WLR 377.
21 In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Doody [1993] QB 157 Lord Mustill
held that the applicants, who had been convicted of murder, were entitled to know the
reasons behind the Secretary of State’s decision as to the length of the penal element
which they had to serve. This was because the applicant had “an obvious human desire to
be told the reason for a decision so gravely affecting his future …”, and because it was
necessary to have this information in order to be able to mount an effective attack on the
decision.
22 See Moss (1990) 91 Cr App R 371 at 375.
23 Denton, The Times, 22 November 2000; judgment 19 October 2000, para 35, per Rose LJ.
24 R v Snaresbrook Crown Court ex p Input Management Ltd (1999) 163 JP 533.
25 R v Inner London Crown Court, ex p London Borough of Lambeth [2000] Crim LR 303.
26 It was held in R v Kingston Crown Court, ex p B (A Juvenile) (2000) 164 JP 633 that there
was no such requirement where the reasons for the decision were obvious or the subject of
the appeal was unimportant.
206