英语论文网

从历史上看，既有普法也有在法庭上可受理品格为证据的法律规定。在刑事案件中，有很充分的理由受理被告良好的品格具作为证据，因为有个公平、公正的无罪推定，即一个人的品格好就不易犯罪。良好的品格作为可受理的证据仍然受到普法的管辖。至于人品太差的情况，1865年刑事诉讼法第3条规定，一方当事人无权以自己亲眼看到的不良品格作为一般证据，来否定信誉。

一般来说，有两种不予受理不良品格为证据的例外情况，“类似事实证据”和被告品格的问题。例外情况载于1898刑事证据法（CEA）的s.1(3)，（i）被告声称他具有良好品格; （ii）先前的不当行为是犯罪的一个组成部分;（iii）与被告一同被指控者提供的证据。然而，s.1(3)条规定通常被称为被告被揭露的不良品格的盾牌，当类似的事实不适用，或不满足s.1(3)条件时。由于旧法的缺陷，2001年法律委员会报告[1]认为现行法律缺乏明确性，并导致不一致。

Implications Of The Case Versus Highton Law Essay

Historically, there are both common-law and statutory provisions governing admissibility of character evidence in court. In criminal cases evidence of the accused’s good character is admissible with good reason, because there is a fair and just presumption that a person of good character would not commit a crime. The admissibility of good character evidence remains governed by the common law. As for bad character, section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 provides, a party is not entitled to impeach the credit if his own witness by general evidence of his bad character.

Generally, there are two exceptions to the inadmissibility of bad character evidence, the “similar fact evidence” and the issue of the accused character. The exception was contained in s.1(3) of The Criminal Evidence Act (CEA) 1898 where (i)the accused asserted his good character; (ii)where the previous misconduct is an integral part of the offence; and (iii)where the accused give evidence against co-accused. However, the provisions of s.1(3) are often referred to as a ——shield' for the defendant to expose his bad character if the similar fact rule did not apply and conditions in s.1(3) are not satisfied. Due to the defects of the old law, The 2001 Law Commission Report [1] agreed that the existing law lacked clarity and led to inconsistency. The Law Commission recommended that a leave should be required before the admission of bad character evidence. Lord Justice Auld [2] also found the law is highly unsatisfactory. Sir Robin Auld favoured the disclosure of the criminal records of the defendants. Chapter 1 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 appeared to codify law governing admissibility of bad character evidence by abolishing the common law rules, amending s.6 of The Criminal Procedure Act 1865. [3]

Section 99 of the CJA 2003 abolished all common rules governing bad character evidence in criminal proceedings. [4] S.98 defines “bad character” as misconduct [5] other than that which has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged. Evidence of bad character covers misconduct whether or not unlawful and whether it resulted in conviction or acquittal. The House of Lords decision in R v Z [6] where evidence on misconduct is admissible because it tends to show that the accused was guilty of a previous acquitted offence. Relying on Z, Scott Baker LJ in R v Edwards [7] said that if evidence of previous allegation is in principle admissible notwithstanding that the accused was acquitted of charges based on allegation in previous trial, evidence relating to allegation that had never been tried should not be admissible is unquestionable. The word “reprehensible” [8] carries with elements of culpability or blameworthiness depends on which views are likely to differ. [9] In R v Weir [10] , reprehensible behaviour is not behaviour which is criminal. A law