Gateways (E), (F) And (G), And Concluding Observations Concerning Gateways
Gateway (e): Substantial Probative Value in relation to Important Matter in Issue between
Defendant and Co-Defendant
Example (1): Co-D blames D -> co-D may be able to introduce evidence of D’s bad
character to demonstrate D’s propensity to commit offences of the same kind, and
hence the likelihood that D is the sole guilty party
Example (2): D effectively undermines co-D’s defence -> co-D may be able to
introduce evidence of D’s bad character to demonstrate D’s propensity to be
untruthful
R v Platt 2016:
Lord Justice Lloyd Jones said:
“I do not consider that it is open to the authority to criminalise every unauthorised holiday
by the simple device of alleging in the information that there has been no regular
attendance in a period limited to the absence on holiday. If that were carried to its logical
conclusion, it would be open to the authority to bring a prosecution under section 444(1) in
respect of an unauthorised absence from school without lawful excuse of one day by
limiting the period of irregular attendance alleged in the information to that one day.”
“Under section 444 an offence is committed if a child does not attend school regularly. This
court in C [London Borough of Bromley v C [2006] EWHC 1110] considered that that was a
question of fact and degree, a matter for judgement by the court. That decision in C is not
strictly binding on this court, but it is persuasive authority and, in any case, in my view it is
correct.”
“I am unable to accept Mr Jackson’s submission that consideration of Regulation 2 of the
2013 Regulations makes the intention of Parliament clear. First, the regulation is, of course,
secondary legislation. Secondly, the regulation does not have the effect of amending the
statute. In my view, the nature and scope of the offence created by section 444(1) remain
unchanged. In particular I would reject the suggestion that Regulation 2 has the effect that
any absence without statutory excuse necessarily constitutes an offence under section
444(1).”
“In this case, the question whether attendance had been regular could not be ascertained
solely by reference to the period of absence. It was necessary to have regard to the period
of absence in a wider context of attendance. The magistrates were bound to consider
whether there was regular school attendance in the light of all the evidence including the
school’s record of attendance. In this case, I note that the education authority placed before
the court M’s record of attendance from 1 September 2014 to 7 July 2015. I consider that
the magistrates correctly had regard to that wider picture. Moreover in all the
circumstances of this case I am unable to say that their conclusion was not one reasonably
open to them.”
Gateway (f): Correction of False Impression Given by Defendant
Gateway (e): Substantial Probative Value in relation to Important Matter in Issue between
Defendant and Co-Defendant
Example (1): Co-D blames D -> co-D may be able to introduce evidence of D’s bad
character to demonstrate D’s propensity to commit offences of the same kind, and
hence the likelihood that D is the sole guilty party
Example (2): D effectively undermines co-D’s defence -> co-D may be able to
introduce evidence of D’s bad character to demonstrate D’s propensity to be
untruthful
R v Platt 2016:
Lord Justice Lloyd Jones said:
“I do not consider that it is open to the authority to criminalise every unauthorised holiday
by the simple device of alleging in the information that there has been no regular
attendance in a period limited to the absence on holiday. If that were carried to its logical
conclusion, it would be open to the authority to bring a prosecution under section 444(1) in
respect of an unauthorised absence from school without lawful excuse of one day by
limiting the period of irregular attendance alleged in the information to that one day.”
“Under section 444 an offence is committed if a child does not attend school regularly. This
court in C [London Borough of Bromley v C [2006] EWHC 1110] considered that that was a
question of fact and degree, a matter for judgement by the court. That decision in C is not
strictly binding on this court, but it is persuasive authority and, in any case, in my view it is
correct.”
“I am unable to accept Mr Jackson’s submission that consideration of Regulation 2 of the
2013 Regulations makes the intention of Parliament clear. First, the regulation is, of course,
secondary legislation. Secondly, the regulation does not have the effect of amending the
statute. In my view, the nature and scope of the offence created by section 444(1) remain
unchanged. In particular I would reject the suggestion that Regulation 2 has the effect that
any absence without statutory excuse necessarily constitutes an offence under section
444(1).”
“In this case, the question whether attendance had been regular could not be ascertained
solely by reference to the period of absence. It was necessary to have regard to the period
of absence in a wider context of attendance. The magistrates were bound to consider
whether there was regular school attendance in the light of all the evidence including the
school’s record of attendance. In this case, I note that the education authority placed before
the court M’s record of attendance from 1 September 2014 to 7 July 2015. I consider that
the magistrates correctly had regard to that wider picture. Moreover in all the
circumstances of this case I am unable to say that their conclusion was not one reasonably
open to them.”
Gateway (f): Correction of False Impression Given by Defendant
