R v Brewster
Evidence of a prosecution witness's previous convictions may have substantial probative value as to credibility under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, even if they do not involve untruthfulness.
Facts
In two appeals, the defendants had sought to adduce evidence of the previous convictions of prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allows evidence of a non defendant's bad character to be admitted with leave if it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which is in issue and is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. The trial judges had refused to admit the evidence, because the convictions did not involve dishonesty or untruthfulness.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal clarified the test. Pitchford LJ said that the question is whether the evidence of previous misconduct is sufficiently persuasive to be worthy of consideration by the jury as to whether the witness's evidence is worthy of belief, and that convictions for offences not involving untruthfulness may be capable of affecting the creditworthiness of a witness, depending on their nature and number. Creditworthiness is not limited to a propensity to be untruthful. A judge who refused to admit such evidence simply because it did not involve untruthfulness would be applying too narrow a test.
Related cases on character evidence
- Director of Public Prosecutions v P [1991] 2 AC 447
- Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57
- R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824
- R v Highton [2005] EWCA Crim 1985
- R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631
- R v Vye [1993] 1 WLR 471
- R v Z [2000] 2 AC 483
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
