Bad Character, Sexual History and Good Character: Introduction

Why this chapter matters. A previous conviction may help explain a case, reveal a relevant tendency or test an account. It may also distract the court from the allegation being tried. Your task is to identify whose character is in issue, the lawful route for introducing the evidence, and the inference the evidence can actually support. A defendant is not tried for being an undesirable person. Equally, a relevant history is not inadmissible simply because it is damaging. The framework is Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA), ss 98–112, with separate sexual-history restrictions and good-character principles.

Where this fits in the course. Begin with the difference between the prosecution, the defendant and a co-defendant: a co-defendant is another person accused in the same proceedings. A complainant is the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed. Before studying this chapter, understand the charged offence, the disputed facts and the prosecution's obligation to prove guilt. Read the confession and hearsay chapters separately when the material is an interview or another person's statement: satisfying a character gateway does not automatically satisfy those other evidential rules. The later witness chapter, Chapter 9 (Witnesses, Special Measures, Experts and Privilege), addresses participation and questioning safeguards; the trial chapter puts rulings and directions into the trial sequence. This chapter supplies the character decisions those chapters use, not a second account of their procedures.

Three terms to keep separate. Evidence is relevant when it can help prove or disprove a matter that must be decided. Admissibility asks whether the law permits the tribunal to receive it. Weight asks how persuasive the admitted evidence is. The tribunal of fact is the jury in a jury trial, or the magistrates or District Judge in a summary trial. A gateway is a statutory condition permitting admission, not a finding that the evidence is true. The judge's preliminary assessment under CJA s 109 and the fact-finder's ultimate evaluation are different decisions.