The K M Links Game - May 2024 Week 1
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Previous convictions
Ca previous convictions be used as evidential significance
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mtd123. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Not true, I�m afraid Norman.
Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 juries or magistrates may hear of previous convictions (of a similar nature to the offence being tried). This is to provide evidence of �bad character� in that the accused has a propensity to commit similar crimes.
There are strict limitations on the use of these measures (which may also be used to discredit witnesses) and the arguments in the Crown Court are heard without the jury being present and are ruled upon by the judge. In the magistrates� court, however, the magistrates themselves make the ruling. This sometimes leads to difficulties if they rule that they should not hear something that they have already heard about!
Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 juries or magistrates may hear of previous convictions (of a similar nature to the offence being tried). This is to provide evidence of �bad character� in that the accused has a propensity to commit similar crimes.
There are strict limitations on the use of these measures (which may also be used to discredit witnesses) and the arguments in the Crown Court are heard without the jury being present and are ruled upon by the judge. In the magistrates� court, however, the magistrates themselves make the ruling. This sometimes leads to difficulties if they rule that they should not hear something that they have already heard about!
If the accused commits a crime that is similar in 'time, place, and circumstance', to the current indictment, then evidence of that past behaviour can be heard. It's called the Moorov doctrine, following
So if Jack (an employer) is accused of sexually assaulting Jill (his employee) at their office, during working hours; then if Janice gives evidence that she was also a victim under substantially similar circumstances, then Janice's evidence can be used to indirectly corroborate Jill's accusation and lead to Jack's conviction.
So if Jack (an employer) is accused of sexually assaulting Jill (his employee) at their office, during working hours; then if Janice gives evidence that she was also a victim under substantially similar circumstances, then Janice's evidence can be used to indirectly corroborate Jill's accusation and lead to Jack's conviction.
The general rule governing the admission of evidence of the accused�s character is that the Prosecution should not lead evidence tending to show the previous bad character or criminal propensities of the accused. There are exceptions to this rule in those cases where the accused�s character is definitely related to the crime with which he is charged or where the accused leads evidence to prove previous good character (Scotland)
1 to 5 of 5
