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

17.11 Magistrates have no general duty to give judgments or reasons for their decisions
and will not necessarily be criticised for their failure to give reasons. 27 However,
there is support for the approach that reasons should be given, in order to assist
the defence in considering possible grounds of appeal. 28
The ECHR jurisprudence
17.12 Article 6, the right to a fair trial, requires a court to give reasons for its judgment,
enabling the defendant to challenge the court’s decision on appeal, 29 but this duty
does not extend to all decisions. It is dependent on the nature of the decision
and the circumstances of the case. Where a submission to the judge would be
decisive of the outcome of the case if accepted, specific and express reasons are
required. 30
17.13 The relevant consideration is whether the inclusion or exclusion of evidence of
previous misconduct is decisive to the outcome of the trial. Reasons must be
given for the ultimate judgment, 31 a major component of the complaint, 32 or a
point allowing the case to be heard such as the application of time-bars: 33 these
are all decisive matters. The reasoning in Hadjianastassiou is also relevant:
reasons may be required to allow the defendant to adequately assert his right to
appeal. 34
Conclusion
17.14 In the Crown Court a judge will usually find it necessary to give reasons for a
ruling on admissibility of evidence. In summary hearings, it will not necessarily
be known at the time a decision is made on the admissibility of bad character
evidence whether it will play a decisive role in the verdict, and even at the end of
the summary trial, only the magistrates will know on what basis the defendant
was convicted or acquitted. Thus the Strasbourg jurisprudence does not
translate easily to the English context. The indications in the English case law
have been that magistrates are not always required to give reasons, even in
situations where one might expect them to have to do so. If the HRA 1998 has
truly changed the position in summary trials, it will require an authoritative
decision to say so. There is a trend in this direction, but so far no authority which
27
R v The Southend Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Rochford District Council [1995] Env LR 1.
See also A v DPP [2000] Crim LR 572.
28 Archbold 15–440.
29 Hadjianastassiou v Greece (1993) 16 EHRR 219.
30 Hiro Balani v Spain (1995)19 EHRR 566.
31 Hadjianastassiou v Greece (1993) 16 EHRR 219.
32 Hiro Balani v Spain (1995) 19 EHRR 566: whether trade mark rights could be asserted
over a similar name in an action to remove a trade mark from the register.
33 Ruiz Torija v Spain (1995) 19 EHRR 553.
34 Under Article 6(3).
207