No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The good character ‘backstop’: directions, defeasibility and frameworks of fairness
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 September 2020
Abstract
This paper examines the law on good character evidence in criminal trials through a discussion of the important but under-analysed case of Hunter, in which a five-judge Court of Appeal sought to clarify the law on good character directions to the jury. However, it is argued here that the judgment conflicts with the leading House of Lords decision in Aziz. The paper considers how the court misinterpreted the law and, in particular, the defeasible nature of the rule in Aziz and the impact of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. As a result, the circumstances in which a good character direction will be provided have diminished significantly. It is argued that this has important implications for the right to a fair trial, as good character directions act as a ‘backstop’ against miscarriages of justice. They also form a vital part of the ‘framework of fairness’ considered necessary, in lieu of reasoned jury verdicts, by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Taxquet v Belgium. Accordingly, it is contended that Aziz rather than Hunter should be followed so that, where there is evidence of good character, a direction is normally provided as a matter of law.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
†
I would like to thank participants at the Dublin City University Evidence and Procedure Conference and at Goldsmith's Law Inaugural Criminal Justice Symposium at The British Academy in March 2019, along with the journal's reviewers, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
References
1 [2015] EWCA Crim 631.
2 Ibid, at [66].
3 Teeluck v Trinidad & Tobago [2005] UKPC 14 at [33].
4 [1996] AC 41.
5 Tang Siu Man v HKSAR [1998] 1 HKC 371 at 403 (Bokhary PJ).
6 Aziz, above n 4, at 51A and 53E; Teeluck, above n 3.
7 Above n 1, at [20].
8 Ibid, at [89]–[98]. Eg R v Nankani [2016] EWCA Crim 888.
9 Law Commission Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Previous Misconduct of a Defendant (Law Com CP No 141, 1996) 8.13.
10 Kenny, C Outlines of Criminal Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15th edn, 1947) p 464Google Scholar.
11 See nn 159–168 and accompanying text.
12 Roberts, P and Zuckerman, A Criminal Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2010) p 638Google Scholar.
13 Law Commission CP No 141, above n 9, 8.20.
14 Redmayne, M Character in the Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) p 202CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dripps, D ‘The constitutional status of the reasonable doubt rule’ [1987] 75 California Law Review 1665 at 1695CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laudan, L ‘The presumption of innocence: material or probatory?’ (2005) 11 Legal Theory 333 at 348CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Law Commission Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings (Law Com No 273, 2001) 6.18–6.19; S Lloyd-Bostock ‘The effects on juries of hearing about the defendant's previous criminal record: a simulation study’ [2000] Crim LR 734. In relation to use of the dock, see Mulcahy, L ‘Putting the defendant in their place’ (2013) 53 British Journal of Criminology 1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 Redmayne, above n 14, p 219.
17 Sealey v The State [2002] UKPC 52 at [41].
18 Ibid, at [34]; see also Standing Committee B, Criminal Justice Bill, 23 January 2003, cols 532 and 545–548.
19 Above n 4; Hunter, above n 1, at [68].
20 [2008] EWCA Crim 5.
21 (2012) 54 EHRR 24.
22 Ibid, at [90].
23 R Munday ‘What constitutes good character?’ [1997] Crim LR 247.
24 Hunter, above n 1, at [17], [20] and [70].
25 Stephen, J A History of the Criminal Law of England vol I (London: Macmillan & Co, 1883) p 449Google Scholar.
26 (1664) 6 State Tr 926 at 929.
27 Tapper, C Cross & Tapper on Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 12th edn, 2010) p 339Google Scholar.
28 Russell, W A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanours vol II (London: Joseph Butterworth & Son, 2nd edn, 1828) pp 703–704Google Scholar.
29 The change was located to the turn of the nineteenth century by Lord Steyn in Handbridge [1993] Crim LR 287.
30 Russell, above n 28, p 704.
31 Roberts and Zuckerman, above n 12, p 636.
32 (1865) Le & Ca 520.
33 Jones v DPP [1962] AC 635 at 698–699.
34 Rowton, above n 32, at 529–530.
35 Croom-Johnson, R and Bridgman, G Taylor on Evidence vol 1 (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 12th edn, 1931) [351] p 243Google Scholar.
36 Kenny, above n 10, p 465.
37 Rowton, above n 32, at 536. Although that is not necessarily also evidence of the accused's motivation for an alleged crime. While they share some similarities, the argument that character and motive evidence are the same in nature is controversial and beyond the scope of this paper: see Redmayne, above n 14, pp 70–71 and Duff, A et al. The Trial on Trial (3) (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007) pp 254–256Google Scholar.
38 Ormerod, D and Perry, D (eds) Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2020 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) F14.30Google Scholar.
39 R v Butterwasser [1948] 1 KB 4; R v Gunewardene [1951] 2 KB 600; R v Redgrave (1981) 74 Cr App R 10. See, more recently, R v Grimes [2017] Crim LR 68 and Layne v Attorney General of Grenada [2019] UKPC 11 (hereafter Layne).
40 Redmayne, above n 14, p 217.
41 [1948] 2 KB 173.
42 (1918) 13 Cr App R 125.
43 See also R v Smith [1971] Crim LR 531.
44 Derek Bentley (Deceased) [2001] 1 Cr App R 21 at [68].
45 Bentley (1953) Times, 14 January.
46 R v Vye [1993] 1 WLR 471 at 474.
47 Waterhouse LJ was from a Liberal Party family and also fought two general elections as a Labour Party candidate: Waterhouse, R Child of Another Century (London: Radcliffe Press, 2013) pp 11, 89 and 104Google Scholar.
48 R v Berrada (1990) 91 Cr App R 131, disapproving Smith, above n 43 and by implication Aberg, above n 41 (at the time he was Waterhouse J).
49 Waterhouse LJ submitted a memorandum on behalf of Family Division judges to Lord Roskill's Fraud Trials Committee Report (London: HMSO, 1986), which recommended reasoned verdicts and the removal of juries from complex fraud trials (recommendations 92 and 94). Waterhouse LJ indicated the judges’ approval for reasoned verdicts and later reiterated his strong support for this recommendation, above n 47, p 231.
50 Berrada, above n 48, at 134; X v United Kingdom (1973) 45 CD 1; 3 DR 10.
51 Above nn 21 and 205 and accompanying text.
52 Vye, above n 46, at 475; Aziz, above n 4, at 51.
53 Lord Justice Dunn, Robin Sword and Wig (London: Quiller Press, 1993) p 237Google Scholar.
54 Dennis, I The Law of Evidence (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2017) 18–019Google Scholar.
55 Griew, E ‘Good character is getting a bad name’ (1991) 6 Arch News 5Google Scholar.
56 Berrada, above n 48, at 134.
57 Vye, above n 46, at 477.
58 Sealey v The State, above n 17, at [34].
59 Berrada, above n 48; Munday, above n 23, at 258; Hunter, above n 1, at [20].
60 Above n 1, at [66] and [70].
61 [2000] 2 Cr App R 42.
62 [2001] UKPC 26 at [31].
63 Doncaster, above nn 20 and 86 and accompanying text.
64 Above n 54, 18–019 and 18–020.
65 [2012] EWCA Crim 19.
66 [1995] 2 Cr App R 84.
67 (1994) 99 Cr App R 80.
68 R v Howell [2001] EWCA Crim 2862 at [17].
69 Above n 65, at [13]; Redmayne, above n 14, p 219.
70 Redmayne, above n 14, p 219.
71 As reported in the local newspaper ‘Wembley preacher jailed for week of rape’ Harrow Times (15 February 2010), available at https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/5009131.wembley-preacher-jailed-for-week-of-rape/ (last accessed 27 July 2020).
72 Above n 65, at [12]–[15]. See also R v GAI [2012] EWCA Crim 2033 at [28]–[29].
73 Aziz, above n 4.
74 Hunter, above n 1, at [29].
75 R v Platt [2016] 4 WLR 51 at [23]–[29].
76 Hunter, above n 1, at [85]–[86].
77 Law Commission CP No 141, above n 9, Pt VIII.
78 Law Commission Report No 273, above n 15.
79 Law Commission CP No 141, above n 9, 8.20.
80 Standing Committee B, above n 18, cols 532 and 545–548.
81 As in R v Z [2000] 2 AC 483.
82 Hansard HC Deb, vol 413, cols 704–705, 18 November 2003; R v Chopra [2007] 1 Cr App R 16 at [12].
83 Eg D Birch Anderson [1990] Crim LR 862 at 863.
84 Above n 20; Hunter, above n 1, at [32], [74] and [86].
85 [2013] EWCA Crim 1002 at [38].
86 Notwithstanding that, it was held a modified bad character direction should have been provided, above n 20, at [42]–[43]. Redmayne notes (above n 14, p 220) that the court also suggested a modified direction could be a method of reconciling the 2003 Act bad character provisions with the common law on good character. However, he refers to this as a modified good character direction.
87 Hunter, above n 1, at [74]–[75].
88 Malek, H Phipson on Evidence (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 19th edn, 2017) 19–65Google Scholar.
89 Layne, above n 39, at [56].
90 [2006] EWCA Crim 1226. Above n 1, at [72].
91 Hunter, above n 1, at [70].
92 Ibid, at [71]–[72].
93 [2015] EWCA Crim 1997 at [13]. See also Hallett LJ's Blackstone Lecture 2017, ‘Trial by jury – past and present’, available at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/hallett-lj-blackstone-lecture-20170522-1.pdf (last accessed 27 July 2020).
94 Eg Pegram v DPP [2019] EWHC 2673 (Admin); R v Evans [2017] EWCA Crim 2386 and R v Martin (Graham) [2016] EWCA Crim 474.
95 Above n 39, at [55].
96 Lacey, N ‘The resurgence of character: responsibility in the context of criminalization’ in Duff, R and Green, S Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) p 156Google Scholar.
97 Morgans, above n 93, at [14].
98 Above n 39, at [58].
99 Ibid, at [66].
100 [1994] Lexis Citation 2279.
101 Ibid.
102 Aziz (Court of Appeal) (unreported, 4 March 1994) at 15–16.
103 Aziz (House of Lords), above n 4, at 47F; R v CM [2009] EWCA Crim 158.
104 Above n 1, at [68].
105 Above n 39.
106 Ibid, at [64]–[89].
107 Ibid, at [59] and [46].
108 Aziz, above n 4, at 46E and Aziz (Court of Appeal), above n 102, at 16; E Freer [2015] Arch Rev 4.
109 Above n 46.
110 [1994] Crim LR 205.
111 Hunter, above n 1, at [27] and [58].
112 Teeluck, above n 3; Krishna v Trinidad & Tobago [2011] UKPC 18; Barrow v The State [1998] UKPC 18.
113 The distinction between judgment and discretion is of significance: F Bennion ‘Distinguishing judgment and discretion’ [2000] PL 368; ‘Judgment and discretion revisited: pedantry or substance?’ [2005] PL 707 and Understanding Common Law Legislation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
114 Above n 1, at [77].
115 Ibid, at [68].
116 F Bennion ‘Distinguishing judgment and discretion’ [2000] PL 368.
117 R v Melbourne [1999] 164 ALR 465 at [115].
118 Aziz, above n 4, at 52.
119 Eg Aberg, above n 41.
120 Aziz, above n 4, at 51A; Teeluck, above n 3; Berrada, above n 48, at 134.
121 Layne, above n 39, at [71].
122 As observed by Moses LJ in PD, above n 65, at [12]–[15].
123 In HLA Hart ‘The ascription of responsibility and rights’ (1948–49) 49 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 175. He repudiated this in Punishment and Responsibility (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), but others have further developed his ideas, eg in, R Tur ‘Defeasibilism’ (2001) 21(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 355Google Scholar.
124 Beltran, J and Ratti, G ‘Legal defeasibility: an introduction’ in Beltran, J and Ratti, G (eds) The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) p 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
125 Hart, HLA The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961) p 136Google Scholar.
126 Ibid, ch VII ‘Formalism and Rule-scepticism: 1. The open texture of the law’, pp 121–132.
127 HLA Hart, above n 125, p 125; Twining and Miers How to do Things with Rules (London: Butterworths, 4th edn, 1999) p 181.
128 Steyn, J ‘Does legal formalism hold sway in England?’ (1996) 49(1) Current Legal Problems 43 at 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
129 Steyn, J ‘Pepper v Hart; a re-examination’ (2001) 21(1) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R (Jackson and Others) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 at [120] (Lord Steyn).
130 Above n 125, p 126; above n 128.
131 Aziz, above n 4, at 53E.
132 Rowton, above n 32.
133 Hart, above n 125, p 119.
134 Uncertainty at the borderline is a common feature of rules, ibid, pp 124–125. See further Baker, G ‘Defeasibility and meaning’ in Hacker, P and Raz, J (eds) Law, Morality and Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977) pp 36–37Google Scholar.
135 Aziz, above n 4, at 53C.
136 As Kirby J noted of Aziz in Melbourne, above n 117, at [114].
137 As observed by Bokhary PJ in his discussion of Aziz in Tang Siu Man, above n 5.
138 Aziz, above n 4, at 44H.
139 Hart, above n 125, p 130.
140 Aziz, above n 4, at 53F.
141 Hunter, above n 1, at [65]–[66].
142 PD, above n 65, at [12]–[15] (Moses LJ).
143 Dennis, above n 54, 18–021.
144 Aziz, above n 4, at 53D.
145 [1994] 1 WLR 39.
146 Ibid, at 45.
147 Berrada, above n 48; Vye, above n 46; Teeluck, above n 3.
148 Hunter, above n 1, at [89].
149 Above n 1, at [20], [70] and [72]; R Munday ‘Good character directions in criminal trials: an exercise in containment’ (2015) CLJ 388, 391.
150 Above n 93, at [13]
151 ‘Blackstone Lecture 2017’, above n 93.
152 However, as L Blom-Cooper observes, the jury has never been part of the judiciary nor democratic: Unreasoned Verdict: The Jury's Out (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2019) pp 49–50.
153 Hunter, above n 1, at [67].
154 [1996] 3 NZLR 664.
155 Munday, above n 23.
156 The Court of Appeal's reference here (above n 1, at [20]) was to the section of Munday's article on Falealili and repeats his opinion that Berrada was a ‘wrong turn’ in the law – above n 23, at 255 and 258.
157 Above n 154; Melbourne, above n 117.
158 Above n 154, at 667.
159 Munday, R ‘Reflections on the Criminal Evidence Act 1898’ (1985) 44 Cambridge Law Journal 62 at 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
160 Hartshorne, H and May, M Studies in the Nature of Character Vol 1: Studies in Deceit (New York: MacMillan, 1928)Google Scholar.
161 Redmayne, above n 14.
162 Ibid, p 12.
163 Eg Sârbescu, P and Boncu, A ‘The resilient, the restraint and the restless: personality types based on the Alternative Five-Factor Model’ (2018) 134 Personality and Individual Differences 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sawula, E et al. ‘Associations between personality and self-reported driving restriction in the Candrive II study of older drivers’ (2017) 50 Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
164 Maltby, J et al. Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence (Harlow: Pearson, 4th edn, 2017) p 108Google Scholar regarding George A Kelly's personal construct theory and ‘fragmentation corollary’; Doris, J Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behaviour (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) p 64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
165 J Hunter ‘Character evidence in the criminal trial’ (2016) International Journal of Evidence & Proof 162 at 167.
166 Damaska, M ‘Free proof and its detractors’ (1995) 43 American Journal of Comparative Law 343 at 352CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
167 In a powerful dissent in Melbourne, above n 117, at [120].
168 Ibid, at [107]–[109].
169 Above n 154.
170 Munday, above n 23, at 256.
171 Ibid.
172 [2010] 2 NZLR 11.
173 Ibid, at [26]; R v Alletson [2009] NZCA 205 at [42].
174 Evidence Act 2006, s 37(5).
175 Above n 172.
176 Ibid, at [29] and [32]; R v Banks [2014] 3 NZLR 256 at [18].
177 However, it also held such evidence would be inadmissible according to s 37, as it would not meet the higher test requiring it to be ‘substantially’ helpful in assessing veracity.
178 Aziz, above n 4, at 53E.
179 A judge's summing-up should be fair, balanced and accurate: X v United Kingdom, above n 50; Berrada, above n 48; Vye, above n 46; Teeluck, above n 3.
180 Condron v United Kingdom (2001) 31 EHRR 1.
181 Above n 4.
182 Above n 102.
183 [1993] 1 WLR 619.
184 Steyn, J Democracy through Law (London: Routledge, 2004) p 190Google Scholar.
185 Above n 183.
186 Eg D Brown and A Mostrous ‘Rape case scandal is just “tip of the iceberg”’ The Times (16 December 2017).
187 Above n 183, at 675
188 C Thomas Are juries fair? (February 2010), available at https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf (last accessed 27 July 2020).
189 Above, n 117.
190 Ibid, at [117].
191 PD above n 65, at [14] (Moses LJ) and GAI above n 72 (Pitchford LJ).
192 Hunter, above n 1, at [62], [81] and [91].
193 J Jackson ‘Making juries accountable’ (2002) 50 American Journal of Comparative Law 477 at 525. Disagreements about common sense are not confined to jurors. Griew stated it was common sense that good character was of little or no value, although his comments should be viewed in context, as he was writing prior to both Vye and Aziz, when the law was less clear, above n 55.
194 Pennington, N and Hastie, R, ‘A cognitive theory of juror decision making: the story model’ (1991) 13 Cardozo Law Review 519 at 525Google Scholar.
195 Above n 5.
196 Ibid, at 403 (Bokhary PJ).
197 Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 at 481; Derek Bentley (Deceased), above n 44, at [42].
198 Above n 21.
199 Ibid; Judge v United Kingdom (2011) 52 EHRR SE17.
200 Above n 21, at [90]; Ruiz Torija v Spain [1994] 18390/91 at [29].
201 Craig, P ‘The common law, reasons and administrative justice’ (1994) 53 CLJ 282 at 283CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
202 See Saric v Denmark (31913/96) and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 442 at [43].
203 Or, at least, the ‘informed observer’, CH v HM Advocate [2016] HCJAC 4 at [13].
204 M Coen and J Doak ‘Embedding explained jury verdicts in the English criminal trial’ [2017] 37(4) LS 786 at 791.
205 Above n 21, at [92]; Legillon v France [2013] 53406/10 at [54]. For a critical view, Coen, M ‘With cat-like tread: jury trial and the European Court of Human Rights’ (2014) 14(1) Human Rights Law Review 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
206 L Blom-Cooper ‘Article 6 and modes of criminal trial’ [2001] European Human Rights Law Review 1 at 11–12.
207 [2016] 34238/09 (Grand Chamber).
208 [2011] EWCA Crim 1043 at [12]; R v Ali (Chomir) [2011] EWCA Crim 1011 at [49]–[53].
209 Eg Edwards v UK (1993) 15 EHRR 417 at [39]; De Cubber v Belgium (1985) 7 EHRR 236 at [33].
210 Above n 1, at [20], [70] and [72]; eg R v Bates [2017] EWCA Crim 2522 at [14].
211 Duff et al consider this an essential element in any criminal trial, which they theorise as a ‘calling to answer’ a charge of criminal wrongdoing, above n 37.
212 Tribe, LH American Constitutional Law (Mineola: The Foundation Press, 1988) p 666Google Scholar.
213 Coen and Doak, above n 204. For critical views see K Burd and V Hans ‘Reasons verdicts: oversold?’ [2018] 51 Cornell International Law Journal 319 at 320.
214 Taxquet, above n 21; Judge v United Kingdom, above n 199; Lawless [2011] EWCA Crim 59 at [28].
215 Duff, P ‘The compatibility of jury verdicts with article 6: Taxquet v Belgium’ (2011) 15(2) Edinburgh Law Review 246 at 250Google Scholar.
216 Judge, Lord The Safest Shield (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2015) p 209Google Scholar.
217 Taxquet v Belgium App No 926/05, Merits, 13 January 2009 (Second Section) at [48].
218 Dulaurans v France (2001) 33 EHRR 45 at [33]; Kraska v Switzerland (1994) 18 EHRR 188 at [30].
219 Taxquet, above n 21, at [74].
220 Trechsel, S Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) pp 104–105Google Scholar.
221 Thomas Are juries fair?, above n 188.
222 Above nn 192–194 and accompanying text.
223 Eg dishonesty offences: Law Commission Fraud and Deception (Law Com CP No 155, 1999) 3.17 and 3.20 and sexual offences, PD, above n 65, at [17]; CM, above n 103, at [12] and Doncaster, above n 20, at [41].
224 Suominen v Finland [2003] ECHR 37801/97 at [37]; Tatishvili v Russia (2007) 45 EHRR 52 at [58].
225 Tang Siu Man, above n 5.
226 Aziz, above n 4, at [53].
227 Malek, above n 88, 18–16.
228 Vye, above n 46, at 474; Melbourne, above n 117, at [115].
229 Layne, above n 39, at [55].
230 Specifically, Munday's influential article ‘What constitutes good character?’ above n 23, which drew on the New Zealand Supreme Court case of Falelalili, above n 154.
231 R (on the application of Arthur) v Blackfriars Crown Court [2018] 2 Cr App R 4 at [14].
232 According to the Westlaw Case Digest, as at 30 January 2020, Hunter has been applied, followed and considered twice each, respectively, and mentioned 13 times since 2015, www.westlaw.com.
233 E Coke The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (1644) ch 1, p 41.
234 Sealey v The State, above n 17, at [35].
235 Redmayne, above n 14.
236 Taxquet, above n 21; Lawless, above n 214, at [28].
237 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Abdi and Gawe [1994] Imm AR 402.
238 Above n 20.
239 Ward, above n 183.
240 Sealey v The State, above n 17, at [34].
241 Law Commission CP No 141, above n 9, 8.20.
242 Ibid, 8.13.
243 In Kantian terms, see Duff, R Criminal Attempts (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997) p 201CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
244 Hunter, above n 1, at [70].