Cases

Question 1

Hanson

Answer 1

We need to know this for two purposes:

1. Outlines the contents of a direction on bad character

• give the jury a clear warning against the dangers of placing undue reliance on previous convictions;
• stress that evidence of bad character cannot be used to bolster a weak case, or to prejudice a jury against the defendant;
• emphasise that the jury should not infer guilt from the existence of convictions

2. Tells us what test to apply in determining whether D has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged (for the purposes of s. 101(1)(d)

• Does D’s history of conviction(s) establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged?
• Does this propensity make it more likely that D committed the crime?
• If convictions are for offences of the same category or description, is it unjust to rely on them? → Lots of time has passed
• Where the propensity is proved by other means, is it unfair to admit the evidence? → Fairness test in 101(3)
• Propensity can be demonstrated by one previous event if sufficiently probative of the crime in issue (e.g. ‘strikingly similar’). Considerations include similarity of offence, time since conviction (though can be ongoing e.g. sex crimes), similarity of circumstances

Question 2

Galbraith

Answer 2

Galbraith sets out the test to be applied in cases of trial on indictment for a submission of no case to answer. It has two limbs

1. Limb 1

• This is relatively straight-forward: if there is no evidence then the case should be dismissed
• Examples: an essential prosecution witness has failed to come up to proof, or where there is no direct evidence as to an element of the offence and the inferences which the prosecution ask the court to draw from the circumstantial evidence are inferences which, in the judge’s view, no reasonable jury could properly draw

2. Limb 2

• More complicated: there is some evidence but it is tenuous
• Not appropriate to argue that it would be unsafe to convict (i.e. that it could later be quashed)
• Examples when this limb applies: “if the witness undermines his or her own testimony by conceding uncertainty about vital points, or if what the witness says is manifestly contrary to reason, the court is entitled to hold that no reasonable jury properly directed could rely on the witness’s evidence, and therefore (in the absence of any other evidence) there is no case to answer”
• Test: case should be dismissed if no reasonable jury could properly convict, taking P’s evidence at its highest

Question 3

Vye

Answer 3

Gives guidance on good character directions

1. Judge must give jury directions on relevance of A’s good character (not necessarily a good character direction, but needs to say something about the significance of good character evidence)
2. If A chooses not to testify but relies on admissible exculpatory statements (e.g. made to the police) the judge should direct the jury to have regard to A’s good character when considering the credibility of those statements (presumably this is assuming that A is shown to be of good character)

N.B. Hunter does not change these rules, but Hunter post-dates this case and contains a more up-to-date statement of the law

Question 4

Hunter

Answer 4

Reconsidered the law on good character directions post-Vye. Key points:

• only Ds with absolute good character or deemed to be of effective good character are entitle to judicial directions
• rejected that no evidence of bad character (e.g. previous convictions) was reason to give a good character direction
• trial judge has discretion over what direction to give Ds who are no longer entitled to a full direction
• even failure to give a direction where required will not automatically result in unsafe conviction
• outlines what a standard/good character direction contains: (1) Credibility limb – positive feature which should be taken into account; (2) Propensity limb – means that good character may make it less likely that D acted as alleged, and particular attention should be paid to the fact
• defines ‘absolute good character’ and ‘effective good character’

Question 5

Lucas

Answer 5

Tells us what direction should be given where D has told a lie: “The jury should in appropriate circumstances be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just cause, or out of shame or a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour.”

Question 6

Turnbull

Answer 6

CA gave the following guidance:

N.B. these rules also apply to ID evidence that is not visual, e.g. voice identification

The first question the judge needs to ask is whether the ID evidence is so poor that the case should not be left to the jury and an acquittal should be directed (obviously this will only be the case if the case depends wholly or substantially on the ID evidence). This is simply an instantiation of the ‘no case to answer’ procedure and should comply with Galbraith.

If the judge decides that the case should be left to the jury, then the CA gave guidance as to the warning that the judge must give to the jury:

N.B. there is no need for a special warning where the case does not depend wholly or substantially on the correctness of identification evidence.

(1) The judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution (i.e. possibility of mistake).

(2) The judge should carefully examine the circumstances in which the identification(s) was made.

(3) He should also remind the jury of any specific weaknesses which had appeared in the ID evidence.

All of this applies even if W ID someone they know well

Question 7

Goodyear

Answer 7

Sets out the rules on indications of sentence - pretty much all of the rules on indications come from that case (and have subsequently been endorsed in CrimPD, etc.)

Question 8

Newton

Answer 8

Sets out a type of hearing that may be held where A pleads guilty on a specific basis that P does not accept.