header-logo header-logo

Criminal evidence

01 May 2008
Issue: 7319 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R v McKenzie [2008] EWCA Crim 758, [2008] All ER (D) 157 (Apr)

The defendant was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. The prosecution had called evidence about his alleged bad driving on previous occasions.

HELD Many judges would have taken the view that they would not admit such evidence because of the risk of the trial and the summing up becoming unduly complicated by collateral issues.

However, it cannot be said to have been wrong in principle or perverse to conclude that the evidence could be regarded as tending to show that the appellant had a propensity to drive in an aggressive and impatient manner which involved taking dangerous risks (to fall within s 103 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) and that the evidence was relevant to an important matter in issue between the parties to be admissible under s 101(1)(d).

The Court of Appeal will not interfere with a ruling as to admissibility of evidence of a defendant’s bad character unless the judge’s judgment as to the capacity of prior events to establish propensity is plainly wrong, or discretion to exclude under s 101(3) has been exercised unreasonably in the Wednesbury sense. However, “there is much to be said for trial judges doing all in their power to ensure that cases are tightly focused on the essential issues” (Lord Justice Toulson at para 28).

Issue: 7319 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll