header-logo header-logo

14 June 2007
Issue: 7277 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Criminal Evidence

R v Musone [2007] EWCA Crim 1237, [2007] All ER (D) 398 (May)

Once evidence of a defendant’s bad character is found to be admissible pursuant to CJA 2003,  s 101(1)(e), that section does not confer any power on the court to exclude that evidence on the grounds of unfairness.

Admissibility under that sub-section depends solely on the court’s assessment of the quality of the evidence. However, the rules made under s 111, in relation to bad character evidence do confer power on the court to exclude such evidence in circumstances where there has been a breach of a prescribed requirement. Cases in which a breach of the procedural rules will entitle a court to exclude evidence of substantial probative value will be rare.

A court should be most reluctant to exclude evidence of that quality by reason of a breach of the procedural code; nonetheless, there will be cases where the only way in which the court can ensure fairness is by excluding evidence, even when it reaches the quality described in s 101(1)(e).

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll