Evidence - Character Evidence - Questions (1)
Q1. Donna and Elizabeth both work for International Incorporated. They are charged with having systematically stolen goods from the warehouse over several months and with having assisted each other in smuggling the goods out of the premises past a security guard. Donna has a number of previous convictions for offences of dishonesty and one for a serious assault. Elizabeth has no convictions. Consider the following items of evidence in terms of admissibility and the practical consequences.
(a) Donna suggests that Elizabeth has often mentioned that she was ‘a bit hard up’ and might need extra money to support her boyfriend who does not work. Donna insists that she is not saying that Elizabeth did commit the offences, but suggests that ‘it may be a factor in explaining what happened’.
(b) Donna suggests that the manageress of her department, Fiona, is incompetent and keeps very poor stock records and that it may well be the case that nobody stole any goods at all. Fiona has been called to give evidence for the prosecution and has been cross examined to this effect by Donna’s counsel.
(c) Would it make any difference to your answer to Question (c) if Fiona had not been called as a witness?
(d) Donna testifies that she is happily married with children and her husband has a very well paid job and thus she would have no need for extra money and is unlikely to have stolen
(e) In summing up the judge tells the jury that so far as is known Elizabeth appears to have no criminal record and they should take that into account in any way they think appropriate
Answers:
Q1a) Attack on another person’s (here co-defendant’s) character; apply s101(1)(g) -> Donna’s bad character is admissible
Q1b) Attack on another person’s (here prosecution’s witness’s) character; apply s101(1)(g) -> Donna’s bad character is admissible
Q1c) the person in s101(1)(g) can be anyone, not only witness
Q1d) Apply s101(1)(f) to ratify a false impression
Q1e) Judge’s full direction to jury regarding the good character should include: (i) more likelihood to be believable; & (ii) less likelihood to commit crime
- Apply Vye direction
Q3. Graham has a number of previous convictions for dishonesty offences, including several for burglary. He is now charged with the burglary of a house belonging to Harriet, a lady of 85. The allegation is that he obtained entry to the house by pretending to be an official from the local council investigating the safety of asbestos allegedly used in the roof and while upstairs stole jewellery and other items.
Consider the prosecution’s application to put in evidence his previous character in the following alternative situations. If you conclude that the evidence would be admissible indicate how the judge should direct the jury about the use to which they may put their knowledge of this character.
(a) Graham testifies that he would never do something so dishonest and that at the time in question he was helping to run a charity stall for Oxfam in a town thirty miles away
(b) Three of Graham’s ten previous convictions demonstrate a similar method of operation, of approaching elderly householders and pretending to inspect the house on official business
(c) A crucial prosecution eyewitness is Ian, who has testified that Graham had discussed the possibility of ‘making a killing’ at Harriet’s large, isolated house. Graham causes Ian to be cross examined to the effect that his story is an invention and that he himself carried out the burglary
(d) Graham asserts in evidence that he is virtually certain that John, another criminal who has a grudge against him, carried out the burglary. John is not called as a witness for either party
(e) Explain how your answers would differ if Graham’s previous convictions included convictions for rape and for cruelty to animals, but none for burglary
Answers:
Q3a) If it is the whole defence -> admissible
Q3b) Similar method; s101(1)(d)
- Apply s103; admissible
Q3c) Character attack; s101(1)(g)
- Apply s101(1)(c): It is important explanatory evidence
Q3d) Apply s101(1)(g): Character attack; court’s discretion of admitting defendant’s bad character
Q3e) Much worse offence; not the same / similar kind of offences
- Prejudicial, inadmissible
(a) Donna suggests that Elizabeth has often mentioned that she was ‘a bit hard up’ and might need extra money to support her boyfriend who does not work. Donna insists that she is not saying that Elizabeth did commit the offences, but suggests that ‘it may be a factor in explaining what happened’.
(b) Donna suggests that the manageress of her department, Fiona, is incompetent and keeps very poor stock records and that it may well be the case that nobody stole any goods at all. Fiona has been called to give evidence for the prosecution and has been cross examined to this effect by Donna’s counsel.
(c) Would it make any difference to your answer to Question (c) if Fiona had not been called as a witness?
(d) Donna testifies that she is happily married with children and her husband has a very well paid job and thus she would have no need for extra money and is unlikely to have stolen
(e) In summing up the judge tells the jury that so far as is known Elizabeth appears to have no criminal record and they should take that into account in any way they think appropriate
Answers:
Q1a) Attack on another person’s (here co-defendant’s) character; apply s101(1)(g) -> Donna’s bad character is admissible
Q1b) Attack on another person’s (here prosecution’s witness’s) character; apply s101(1)(g) -> Donna’s bad character is admissible
Q1c) the person in s101(1)(g) can be anyone, not only witness
Q1d) Apply s101(1)(f) to ratify a false impression
Q1e) Judge’s full direction to jury regarding the good character should include: (i) more likelihood to be believable; & (ii) less likelihood to commit crime
- Apply Vye direction
Q3. Graham has a number of previous convictions for dishonesty offences, including several for burglary. He is now charged with the burglary of a house belonging to Harriet, a lady of 85. The allegation is that he obtained entry to the house by pretending to be an official from the local council investigating the safety of asbestos allegedly used in the roof and while upstairs stole jewellery and other items.
Consider the prosecution’s application to put in evidence his previous character in the following alternative situations. If you conclude that the evidence would be admissible indicate how the judge should direct the jury about the use to which they may put their knowledge of this character.
(a) Graham testifies that he would never do something so dishonest and that at the time in question he was helping to run a charity stall for Oxfam in a town thirty miles away
(b) Three of Graham’s ten previous convictions demonstrate a similar method of operation, of approaching elderly householders and pretending to inspect the house on official business
(c) A crucial prosecution eyewitness is Ian, who has testified that Graham had discussed the possibility of ‘making a killing’ at Harriet’s large, isolated house. Graham causes Ian to be cross examined to the effect that his story is an invention and that he himself carried out the burglary
(d) Graham asserts in evidence that he is virtually certain that John, another criminal who has a grudge against him, carried out the burglary. John is not called as a witness for either party
(e) Explain how your answers would differ if Graham’s previous convictions included convictions for rape and for cruelty to animals, but none for burglary
Answers:
Q3a) If it is the whole defence -> admissible
Q3b) Similar method; s101(1)(d)
- Apply s103; admissible
Q3c) Character attack; s101(1)(g)
- Apply s101(1)(c): It is important explanatory evidence
Q3d) Apply s101(1)(g): Character attack; court’s discretion of admitting defendant’s bad character
Q3e) Much worse offence; not the same / similar kind of offences
- Prejudicial, inadmissible
posted by pompom at 6:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home