BAD CHARACTER –
Criminal Justice Act 2003 abolishes Common Law
Common Law:
• Makin – categories of relevance
i. SFE can be relevant if it can show that the alleged act were designed or accidental
ii. To rebut a defence raised by the defendant
• Boardman
Degree of relevance – show between past and present offence must be strikingly similarity =
relevance = probative value = admissible
SS- peculiar, very very unique this is too high of a threshold
• Post Boardman Era (relaxation, more open ended)
o Still using the Boardman’s, i.e. The probative value = admissible
However, emphasis on ‘striking similarity’ has been diluted.
R v Scarrott (1978) Lord Justice Scarman
‘…Hallowed though by now the phrase strikingly similar… it is no more than a label. Like
all labels, it can mislead, it is a possible passport to error…’
o There is no single manner in which probative value can be achieved.
o Every case must be judged based on its own facts.
iii. DPP v P (1991)
Lord MacKay
Offence: Rape and incest of two of his daughters
Past: rape and impregnated another younger daughter, paid for abortion
i. The test is still probative value from Boardman, which can be derived from striking
similarity.
ii. There is no single manner in achieving probative value.
iii. What must be asked is whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs the
prejudicial effects of the evidence.
, Bad character –
CJA 2003 - Abolishes the word similar fact evidence, replaces it with bad character.
1. Evidence must be stamped as Bad Character.
- If evidence is not bad character, admissibility is governed by common law. If it
can fulfil test for relevance, still admissible.
- **In exam, sure can go through CJA, more point**
Definition of Bad Character:
S98 CJA 2003: Bad Character is either evidence of misconduct or disposition (tendency)
towards a misconduct. Evidence of misconduct is further defined by S112 CJA 2003.
Misconduct means
Evidence of reprehensible behaviour or commission of an offence.
Parliament never define reprehensible behaviour.
❖ R v Kiernan(2008)
Lord Justice Laws
Reprehensible Behaviour is a concept difficult to define.
❖ R v Renda (2005)
Reprehensible Behaviour
i. is capable of an objective assessment
ii. is a conduct that a reasonable man would disapprove
iii. must be blameworthy in a moral sense
iv. is based on a reasonable man’s point of view
❖ R v Weir (2006)
A distinction must be drawn between Reprehensible Behaviour (immoral, bad
character) and a merely unattractive behaviour (not immoral not bad character)
Criminal Justice Act 2003 abolishes Common Law
Common Law:
• Makin – categories of relevance
i. SFE can be relevant if it can show that the alleged act were designed or accidental
ii. To rebut a defence raised by the defendant
• Boardman
Degree of relevance – show between past and present offence must be strikingly similarity =
relevance = probative value = admissible
SS- peculiar, very very unique this is too high of a threshold
• Post Boardman Era (relaxation, more open ended)
o Still using the Boardman’s, i.e. The probative value = admissible
However, emphasis on ‘striking similarity’ has been diluted.
R v Scarrott (1978) Lord Justice Scarman
‘…Hallowed though by now the phrase strikingly similar… it is no more than a label. Like
all labels, it can mislead, it is a possible passport to error…’
o There is no single manner in which probative value can be achieved.
o Every case must be judged based on its own facts.
iii. DPP v P (1991)
Lord MacKay
Offence: Rape and incest of two of his daughters
Past: rape and impregnated another younger daughter, paid for abortion
i. The test is still probative value from Boardman, which can be derived from striking
similarity.
ii. There is no single manner in achieving probative value.
iii. What must be asked is whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs the
prejudicial effects of the evidence.
, Bad character –
CJA 2003 - Abolishes the word similar fact evidence, replaces it with bad character.
1. Evidence must be stamped as Bad Character.
- If evidence is not bad character, admissibility is governed by common law. If it
can fulfil test for relevance, still admissible.
- **In exam, sure can go through CJA, more point**
Definition of Bad Character:
S98 CJA 2003: Bad Character is either evidence of misconduct or disposition (tendency)
towards a misconduct. Evidence of misconduct is further defined by S112 CJA 2003.
Misconduct means
Evidence of reprehensible behaviour or commission of an offence.
Parliament never define reprehensible behaviour.
❖ R v Kiernan(2008)
Lord Justice Laws
Reprehensible Behaviour is a concept difficult to define.
❖ R v Renda (2005)
Reprehensible Behaviour
i. is capable of an objective assessment
ii. is a conduct that a reasonable man would disapprove
iii. must be blameworthy in a moral sense
iv. is based on a reasonable man’s point of view
❖ R v Weir (2006)
A distinction must be drawn between Reprehensible Behaviour (immoral, bad
character) and a merely unattractive behaviour (not immoral not bad character)
